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
Support. Very impressed with answers to questons. Maturity far more important than age and this user has the former.
Kit05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - extremely mature for his age, shows good judgement and has been nothing but nice to me and other people that I've seen him talk with.
WikiFanatic
Weak support. Experienced and mainly civil. I'm only concerned about his youth and consequential lack of life experience, but OTOH having a young arbiter could also provide useful balance.
Zocky11:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Good candidate with a good editing record. Although I feel his philosophy to arbitration is not as well-developed as some of the other candidaters overall I believe he would make a valuable addition to the diversity of the ArbComm.
Cedars18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). I would however, remind Ilyanep that there is no evidence contradicting the highly philosophical argument that no knowledge can be true. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Reasonable, sane, all around good guy. Only qualm I have about supporting him is that I feel sorry for throwing him into the meat-grinder. Sometimes, sanity isn't a good thing :-)
crazyeddie02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'd been ruminating on this one for a while due entirely to the age issue, but then once I started reading his comments I realized that it was almost impossible to ascertain his age from them. Thus I can't logically vote 'oppose' due solely to a number. If he can act the part, there's no reason he shouldn't have the part. ArbCom isn't exactly brain surgery. --
Aaron22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Fully support. Already has significant experience on the wiki in an administrative capacity. He would do an excellent job. I disagree to the fullest extent possible with
Grace Note that age is in any way a criterion. Clearly this candidate is meritous, and deserves support. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Sadly oppose. While I greatly respect this user personally, his suggestions here call for a definite oppose on policy grounds.
Ambi00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You will direct me to the champion five-year-old chess players at the last international tournament then? In any case, I don't consider it a question of ability but aptness. Ilyanep could not become the president of the United States and I think there's reason in that. Whining that the constitution is "ageist" doesn't negate its wisdom.
Grace Note08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Nonsense; age does not indicate merit. If it did, we'd simply always elect the oldest members to positions of responcibility. Ilyanep already has shown significant administrative trust and clearly has merit. To deny support of him on the basis of age does not appear to be a well-conceived strategy for evaluating the qualifications of anyone. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I intially agreed with Grace. But then I remembered that Ambi and Neutrality, who are about as young, proved that notion incorrect.
17208:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While the candidate has a theory of arbitration, and clearly addresses it in the candidate statement, I disagree with their conception of arbitration.
Fifelfoo00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. You say in your questions that you can devote as much time as necessary, but on your userpage you say "I really really really want to go to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. If I do I'll be taking month-long wikibreaks though." This would be unacceptable for an arbitrator. Plus, I don't think topical bans are that hot of an idea.
The one Arbitration case that I've had much involvement in gives me the impression that they would often be too lenient. ~~ N (
t/
c)
00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Not enough substance presented to inspire confidence for ArbCom membership. Also for someone who has been around for almost three years there is remarkably little contribution in article space (which is arguably the "turf" of ArbCom).
Sunray07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose 14 years old? If a kid of this age ends up on ArbCom it will affect Wikipedia's reputation negatively, and I think I may just lose my taste for it. Imagine the news controversy involved if something goes wrong and it's all over the news which does happen. 'Teenagers running Wikipeda.' There are businesses. libraries, and schools that use Wikipedia for reference purposes. They're planning on using Wikipedia to print inexpensive textbooks for under-developed countries. This is not a place for a kid to end up with these kinds of administrative powers. Either Wikipedia wants to be taken serious, or it wants to be a joke. (
Bjorn Tipling07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC))reply
Oppose. His age bothers me too. His work to date shows potential, so maybe with a bit more experience in the university of life he might like to come back.
Moriori21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Due only to age. Seems like an excellent user and a good guy but I can't vote to commit a 14 year old to a position like this. --
Spondoolicks21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, age gives me pause, NOT because I'm worried about maturity, but because it will be hard for this user to be able to adequately judge his ability to commit time in the next few years. In addition, the gaps in editing history worry me. --
128.200.138.23621:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
Support. Very impressed with answers to questons. Maturity far more important than age and this user has the former.
Kit05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - extremely mature for his age, shows good judgement and has been nothing but nice to me and other people that I've seen him talk with.
WikiFanatic
Weak support. Experienced and mainly civil. I'm only concerned about his youth and consequential lack of life experience, but OTOH having a young arbiter could also provide useful balance.
Zocky11:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Good candidate with a good editing record. Although I feel his philosophy to arbitration is not as well-developed as some of the other candidaters overall I believe he would make a valuable addition to the diversity of the ArbComm.
Cedars18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). I would however, remind Ilyanep that there is no evidence contradicting the highly philosophical argument that no knowledge can be true. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Reasonable, sane, all around good guy. Only qualm I have about supporting him is that I feel sorry for throwing him into the meat-grinder. Sometimes, sanity isn't a good thing :-)
crazyeddie02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'd been ruminating on this one for a while due entirely to the age issue, but then once I started reading his comments I realized that it was almost impossible to ascertain his age from them. Thus I can't logically vote 'oppose' due solely to a number. If he can act the part, there's no reason he shouldn't have the part. ArbCom isn't exactly brain surgery. --
Aaron22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Fully support. Already has significant experience on the wiki in an administrative capacity. He would do an excellent job. I disagree to the fullest extent possible with
Grace Note that age is in any way a criterion. Clearly this candidate is meritous, and deserves support. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Sadly oppose. While I greatly respect this user personally, his suggestions here call for a definite oppose on policy grounds.
Ambi00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You will direct me to the champion five-year-old chess players at the last international tournament then? In any case, I don't consider it a question of ability but aptness. Ilyanep could not become the president of the United States and I think there's reason in that. Whining that the constitution is "ageist" doesn't negate its wisdom.
Grace Note08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Nonsense; age does not indicate merit. If it did, we'd simply always elect the oldest members to positions of responcibility. Ilyanep already has shown significant administrative trust and clearly has merit. To deny support of him on the basis of age does not appear to be a well-conceived strategy for evaluating the qualifications of anyone. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I intially agreed with Grace. But then I remembered that Ambi and Neutrality, who are about as young, proved that notion incorrect.
17208:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While the candidate has a theory of arbitration, and clearly addresses it in the candidate statement, I disagree with their conception of arbitration.
Fifelfoo00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. You say in your questions that you can devote as much time as necessary, but on your userpage you say "I really really really want to go to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. If I do I'll be taking month-long wikibreaks though." This would be unacceptable for an arbitrator. Plus, I don't think topical bans are that hot of an idea.
The one Arbitration case that I've had much involvement in gives me the impression that they would often be too lenient. ~~ N (
t/
c)
00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Not enough substance presented to inspire confidence for ArbCom membership. Also for someone who has been around for almost three years there is remarkably little contribution in article space (which is arguably the "turf" of ArbCom).
Sunray07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose 14 years old? If a kid of this age ends up on ArbCom it will affect Wikipedia's reputation negatively, and I think I may just lose my taste for it. Imagine the news controversy involved if something goes wrong and it's all over the news which does happen. 'Teenagers running Wikipeda.' There are businesses. libraries, and schools that use Wikipedia for reference purposes. They're planning on using Wikipedia to print inexpensive textbooks for under-developed countries. This is not a place for a kid to end up with these kinds of administrative powers. Either Wikipedia wants to be taken serious, or it wants to be a joke. (
Bjorn Tipling07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC))reply
Oppose. His age bothers me too. His work to date shows potential, so maybe with a bit more experience in the university of life he might like to come back.
Moriori21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Due only to age. Seems like an excellent user and a good guy but I can't vote to commit a 14 year old to a position like this. --
Spondoolicks21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, age gives me pause, NOT because I'm worried about maturity, but because it will be hard for this user to be able to adequately judge his ability to commit time in the next few years. In addition, the gaps in editing history worry me. --
128.200.138.23621:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply