I was wikiborn in October, 2003 and was an administrator since February, 2004. As the number of active editors grow, the number of conflicts naturally grow, so I am willing to give my share of time to this cleanup task as well.

1. I feel that further fate of the project depends on maintaining a reasonable working environment.
2. I am going to oppose the false idea that "all people are equal" (see into the history of Communism to understand what I mean). A better (but still not ideal) statement would be "... equal before the Law" (or "...before God" in some cultures). But in most societies the application of the Law does recognize that people are fundamentally unequal.
3. I will be standing for zero-point-one-tolerance (0.1-tolerance) for disruption of wikipedia's spirit of cooperation, such as ad hominem attacks, policy gaming, information censorship. "Zero-point-one" is a recognition that people are human, can make errors and have emotions.
4. I will stand for a structure in disputes, for efficiency.
5. Pledge: fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation.

• In the past I several times attempted to fix some conflicts by mediation, but being wikiholic I could not restrain myself from editing the corresponding articles, giving grounds for accusations in taking parts. I think the Arbcom job will be more detached from actual content disputes (at least I can pick such cases).
• "0.1-tolerance": I am aware of alarmingly large number of people who mentioned that they gave up some nasty cases feeling these were waste of time and nerves. Have also an impression that there is a whole new category of 'pedians is growing with extremely high edit/rant ratio, who turn article talk pages into political battlefields and wordplaygrounds. This is both good and bad <not going into details>. Still, looking back at wikipedia's primary goal, this leads to a tremendous waste of time when something useful is to be found at the talk page.
• I stand that cases solvable by existing policies should not reach ArbCom at all. Therefore I stronlgy see that sole Arbcom's governing principles are the goal of wikipedia and the environment of collaboration.
• Almost forgot: I am a proud Bureaucratic Fuck

• I understand that questions may arise because I am IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL and I there was a quite nasty conflist lately. At the moment I have only one answer for possible questions here: I was both right and wrong, but I have serious reasons not to discuss these issues until at least January 13, and I am even willing to risk these elections by letting you judge for yourselves whether I am "good" or "bad".

  I have serious reasons to completely refrain from discussing this topic for a reasonably long time. If this will be the reason for voting against me, I will take it that I don't enjoy trust from the community, and hence undeserving to be in arbcom. mikka (t) 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?

--HK 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea of "Code of Conduct" is correct, but I probably have to hire a lawyer to understand the current one. IMO the title is way too solemn, ut this is a matter of taste, I guess. I have objections against some parts. Not to say that we already have Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. I will join its discussion soon. mikka (t) 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What is your reason for referring to an old version of the user Bill page? Anyway, we have Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don't see the "Bill" page stating its purpose. mikka (t) 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a candidate?

Are you still a candidate, given your recent deletion of your user page and announced departure from Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above, no comments. I restored the user page for people to see my evil anti-Semitic Soviet KGB past. mikka (t) 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related question, why did you announce that you will leave Wikipedia? What brings you back? Under what circumstances will you leave Wikipedia again (after you are elected)? --Hurricane111 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Answering only this one. I did not announce I leave wikipedia. I announced refraining from editing articles and specifically referred people to the "GoodBye" article. I deleted my user pages for the reasons I will not disclose now. I restored my user pages because voting people have right to know about me. mikka (t) 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be so easily needled into apparently leaving, what makes you think you have a tough enough skin for ArbCom? --maru (talk) Contribs 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My skin is proven extremely tough, colleague, hardened in battles with Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. About "so easily", you are mistaken. In due time I will explain myself. Also, "tough skin" is way down the list of qualities necessary for ArbCom IMO. mikka (t) 19:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte.

Given your bias history towards others but also towards me, you repeated often these days that you still have some not solved conflicts with some users. How do you want to proceed in the future? I'm referring to your point no°5 from your statements: "fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation". Then providing you all the details and proofs when a user like node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did broke the rules of Wikipedia, what you will do? Continue your bias or applying the rules? How do you consider your blocking when you broke the 3RR rule? Bonaparte talk 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. No comments. The phrase "Bias history towards others" is called slander and you are pretty much known for this and other kinds of persisitent disruptive behavior. Therefore I am not engaging in discussion with you in this page. mikka (t) 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Talk:Anti-Semitism_(abuse)

In one of my earliest edits, in 2004, I removed a section of the Anti-Semitism article, which stated:

Abusing the term Anti-Semitism

A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.

In parallel with the development of the organisation fighting the anti-Semitism, there is growing menace that the blame will be used to eliminate political oponents. There is quite a long history of abuse of anti-Semitism as the blame that could be used out of political motifs. One of the examples, Soviet Union committees existed to fight an anti-Semitism, but were often used to destroy political opponents. Other example, political asasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, that was murdered in 1925 by the agent of Soviet intelligence of Jewish nationality. The Soviet spy defend himself in face of court using alleged anti-Semitism of the victim as an excuse.

Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.

You continually re-inserted the section calling it "vandalism" to remove it, claimed (in Edit summary) "Facts chek themselves out" and calling the reason for removal "idiotic because the paragraph is anti-Soviet." I presented a detailed break-down of the problems with the specious claims, which you referred to as a "diatribe" that "unfortunately shows you didn't always correctly undersand the written" and further stated, "This theory about Petliura has considerable representation in the internet." This led into an extensive discussion, which (mea culpa) turned a bit uncivil at: Talk:Anti-Semitism_(abuse).

I would like to hear whether your opinion on the matter has changed, and how the policies of Neutral Point of View and No Original Research relate to the section which I removed.—LeFlyman 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, you failed to expose the facts correctly. Quoting myself from this: Thank you. This is exactly how a deletion should be handled: with detailed explanation. Especially if you really know something.. Also I wrote: "I will refrain from discussion", and I did. My sole intervention was because of repeated deletion of a huge piece of text without any serious explanation.

And my opinion on this matter did not change: persistent deletion of a big chunk of text without explanation is a serious disruption of wikipedia ethics.

As to your exam questions:

• NPOV policy requires the deleted text deserves to be present, since it represents a notable opinion. I saw it not once or twice, but being a non-expert, I refrained from further discussion.
• The NOR policy requires that this section should be properly attributed, since its major point was an opinion rather than fact, although the opinion confirmed by historical facts. mikka (t) 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gnomz007

At the end of the previous year I have wittnessed a huge number of burnouts (or rather people "witholding contribution until this place becomes [insert wish]") on Wiki and unprecedented of conflicts involving WP:TINC, what do you think is the cause, can anything be done to prevent it by Arbcom ?

I don't think an ArbCom can or have to do anything with this, at least with its really small count. The way as I see it, the rules of wikipedia initially were pretty lax with respect to various disruptive behavior, for a number of reasons: Wikipedia is unique in its intermediate status between totally unmoderated and moderated types of forum; also most policies were formulated so as to not to scare away possible contributors. Now wikipedia editor headcount is strong, and IMO it will not do much harm to fend off a couple of really rogue contributors, because I may readily believe that many truly knowing people would find it below their dignity to waste their time on fending off snappy teenagers. We already witness how experience allows wikipedia to tighten its policies, e.g., WP:CSD, WP:SEMI etc. Five years is too short a time period for this grandiose sociological experiment.

BTW, the page WP:TINC is rather disgusting. Phrases like "the universe does not revolve around you" and "There is a cabal if you want there to be one" are misdirected, mistaken, and misplaced. For every catch phrase there is usually another one, with an exactly opposite meaning. mikka (t) 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to WP:TINC it because I wanted to point out the nature of the problems. Maybe my question is not relevant to nomination, but thank you for a thoughtful answer.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form questions from Simetrical

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A valid penalty. mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I assume that your question is related to potential abuse of adin powers. If I am wrong, please restate the question. It is a common misunderstanding that admin's abuse is when they not "closely follow policy". Admins currently have only two powers which may be badly abused, which is blocking users and protecting pages. The corresponding policies, eg. Wikipedia:Blocking policy, say that admins may act "at their judgement". Therefore theoretically an admin should not have troubles with "closely following" a potentially "abusable" policy. Of course, their judgement may be wrong, and this misjudgement may turn into abuse. At the same time, like any abuse/misuse, his actions may be easlily reverted by another admin. And there is no "admin's cabal"; what is more admins greatly vary in opinions on all issues, just like any other users. In all other aspects an andmin has no special privileges. And I think that unlike a random vandal, an admin has more to lose, therefore he can be brought to senses more quickly. (The latter is my opinion only, but indeed, it would be interesting to collect some statistics from arbcom and mediation cases.) mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Answering a potential follow-up question, I never abused the power tools. What is more, you may look into my block log, during my whole life I blocked, like, a dozen of live wikipedians only. mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well for blocks. What about protection and deletion? Neither of those policies includes any phrases allowing admins substantial judgment, that I can see. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably because you were not closely involved in these issues. Some examples:
  • Deletion involves judgement in terms of what "consensus" during a vote for deletion is.
  • The rule "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing" involves judgement about the word "actively engaged".

And there are more such loopholes. And it is impossible to close them for a number of reasons. Since it is impossible to write a law for each and every case, admins are allowed to make judgement. Of course, if their judgement errs too often, they may be called to order. But again, wikipedia is neither democracy, nor police state. There is one general rule for admins, which, if strictly enforced (and elaborated into an explicit policy; but this is another issue), is a strong barrier to admin's abuse: there should never be admin wars under any circumstances. I am thinking to propose the "1-revert rule" for admin actions. mikka (t) 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wikiborn in October, 2003 and was an administrator since February, 2004. As the number of active editors grow, the number of conflicts naturally grow, so I am willing to give my share of time to this cleanup task as well.

1. I feel that further fate of the project depends on maintaining a reasonable working environment.
2. I am going to oppose the false idea that "all people are equal" (see into the history of Communism to understand what I mean). A better (but still not ideal) statement would be "... equal before the Law" (or "...before God" in some cultures). But in most societies the application of the Law does recognize that people are fundamentally unequal.
3. I will be standing for zero-point-one-tolerance (0.1-tolerance) for disruption of wikipedia's spirit of cooperation, such as ad hominem attacks, policy gaming, information censorship. "Zero-point-one" is a recognition that people are human, can make errors and have emotions.
4. I will stand for a structure in disputes, for efficiency.
5. Pledge: fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation.

• In the past I several times attempted to fix some conflicts by mediation, but being wikiholic I could not restrain myself from editing the corresponding articles, giving grounds for accusations in taking parts. I think the Arbcom job will be more detached from actual content disputes (at least I can pick such cases).
• "0.1-tolerance": I am aware of alarmingly large number of people who mentioned that they gave up some nasty cases feeling these were waste of time and nerves. Have also an impression that there is a whole new category of 'pedians is growing with extremely high edit/rant ratio, who turn article talk pages into political battlefields and wordplaygrounds. This is both good and bad <not going into details>. Still, looking back at wikipedia's primary goal, this leads to a tremendous waste of time when something useful is to be found at the talk page.
• I stand that cases solvable by existing policies should not reach ArbCom at all. Therefore I stronlgy see that sole Arbcom's governing principles are the goal of wikipedia and the environment of collaboration.
• Almost forgot: I am a proud Bureaucratic Fuck

• I understand that questions may arise because I am IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL and I there was a quite nasty conflist lately. At the moment I have only one answer for possible questions here: I was both right and wrong, but I have serious reasons not to discuss these issues until at least January 13, and I am even willing to risk these elections by letting you judge for yourselves whether I am "good" or "bad".

  I have serious reasons to completely refrain from discussing this topic for a reasonably long time. If this will be the reason for voting against me, I will take it that I don't enjoy trust from the community, and hence undeserving to be in arbcom. mikka (t) 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?

--HK 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea of "Code of Conduct" is correct, but I probably have to hire a lawyer to understand the current one. IMO the title is way too solemn, ut this is a matter of taste, I guess. I have objections against some parts. Not to say that we already have Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. I will join its discussion soon. mikka (t) 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What is your reason for referring to an old version of the user Bill page? Anyway, we have Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don't see the "Bill" page stating its purpose. mikka (t) 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a candidate?

Are you still a candidate, given your recent deletion of your user page and announced departure from Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above, no comments. I restored the user page for people to see my evil anti-Semitic Soviet KGB past. mikka (t) 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related question, why did you announce that you will leave Wikipedia? What brings you back? Under what circumstances will you leave Wikipedia again (after you are elected)? --Hurricane111 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Answering only this one. I did not announce I leave wikipedia. I announced refraining from editing articles and specifically referred people to the "GoodBye" article. I deleted my user pages for the reasons I will not disclose now. I restored my user pages because voting people have right to know about me. mikka (t) 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be so easily needled into apparently leaving, what makes you think you have a tough enough skin for ArbCom? --maru (talk) Contribs 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My skin is proven extremely tough, colleague, hardened in battles with Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. About "so easily", you are mistaken. In due time I will explain myself. Also, "tough skin" is way down the list of qualities necessary for ArbCom IMO. mikka (t) 19:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte.

Given your bias history towards others but also towards me, you repeated often these days that you still have some not solved conflicts with some users. How do you want to proceed in the future? I'm referring to your point no°5 from your statements: "fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation". Then providing you all the details and proofs when a user like node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did broke the rules of Wikipedia, what you will do? Continue your bias or applying the rules? How do you consider your blocking when you broke the 3RR rule? Bonaparte talk 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. No comments. The phrase "Bias history towards others" is called slander and you are pretty much known for this and other kinds of persisitent disruptive behavior. Therefore I am not engaging in discussion with you in this page. mikka (t) 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Talk:Anti-Semitism_(abuse)

In one of my earliest edits, in 2004, I removed a section of the Anti-Semitism article, which stated:

Abusing the term Anti-Semitism

A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.

In parallel with the development of the organisation fighting the anti-Semitism, there is growing menace that the blame will be used to eliminate political oponents. There is quite a long history of abuse of anti-Semitism as the blame that could be used out of political motifs. One of the examples, Soviet Union committees existed to fight an anti-Semitism, but were often used to destroy political opponents. Other example, political asasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, that was murdered in 1925 by the agent of Soviet intelligence of Jewish nationality. The Soviet spy defend himself in face of court using alleged anti-Semitism of the victim as an excuse.

Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.

You continually re-inserted the section calling it "vandalism" to remove it, claimed (in Edit summary) "Facts chek themselves out" and calling the reason for removal "idiotic because the paragraph is anti-Soviet." I presented a detailed break-down of the problems with the specious claims, which you referred to as a "diatribe" that "unfortunately shows you didn't always correctly undersand the written" and further stated, "This theory about Petliura has considerable representation in the internet." This led into an extensive discussion, which (mea culpa) turned a bit uncivil at: Talk:Anti-Semitism_(abuse).

I would like to hear whether your opinion on the matter has changed, and how the policies of Neutral Point of View and No Original Research relate to the section which I removed.—LeFlyman 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, you failed to expose the facts correctly. Quoting myself from this: Thank you. This is exactly how a deletion should be handled: with detailed explanation. Especially if you really know something.. Also I wrote: "I will refrain from discussion", and I did. My sole intervention was because of repeated deletion of a huge piece of text without any serious explanation.

And my opinion on this matter did not change: persistent deletion of a big chunk of text without explanation is a serious disruption of wikipedia ethics.

As to your exam questions:

• NPOV policy requires the deleted text deserves to be present, since it represents a notable opinion. I saw it not once or twice, but being a non-expert, I refrained from further discussion.
• The NOR policy requires that this section should be properly attributed, since its major point was an opinion rather than fact, although the opinion confirmed by historical facts. mikka (t) 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gnomz007

At the end of the previous year I have wittnessed a huge number of burnouts (or rather people "witholding contribution until this place becomes [insert wish]") on Wiki and unprecedented of conflicts involving WP:TINC, what do you think is the cause, can anything be done to prevent it by Arbcom ?

I don't think an ArbCom can or have to do anything with this, at least with its really small count. The way as I see it, the rules of wikipedia initially were pretty lax with respect to various disruptive behavior, for a number of reasons: Wikipedia is unique in its intermediate status between totally unmoderated and moderated types of forum; also most policies were formulated so as to not to scare away possible contributors. Now wikipedia editor headcount is strong, and IMO it will not do much harm to fend off a couple of really rogue contributors, because I may readily believe that many truly knowing people would find it below their dignity to waste their time on fending off snappy teenagers. We already witness how experience allows wikipedia to tighten its policies, e.g., WP:CSD, WP:SEMI etc. Five years is too short a time period for this grandiose sociological experiment.

BTW, the page WP:TINC is rather disgusting. Phrases like "the universe does not revolve around you" and "There is a cabal if you want there to be one" are misdirected, mistaken, and misplaced. For every catch phrase there is usually another one, with an exactly opposite meaning. mikka (t) 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to WP:TINC it because I wanted to point out the nature of the problems. Maybe my question is not relevant to nomination, but thank you for a thoughtful answer.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form questions from Simetrical

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A valid penalty. mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I assume that your question is related to potential abuse of adin powers. If I am wrong, please restate the question. It is a common misunderstanding that admin's abuse is when they not "closely follow policy". Admins currently have only two powers which may be badly abused, which is blocking users and protecting pages. The corresponding policies, eg. Wikipedia:Blocking policy, say that admins may act "at their judgement". Therefore theoretically an admin should not have troubles with "closely following" a potentially "abusable" policy. Of course, their judgement may be wrong, and this misjudgement may turn into abuse. At the same time, like any abuse/misuse, his actions may be easlily reverted by another admin. And there is no "admin's cabal"; what is more admins greatly vary in opinions on all issues, just like any other users. In all other aspects an andmin has no special privileges. And I think that unlike a random vandal, an admin has more to lose, therefore he can be brought to senses more quickly. (The latter is my opinion only, but indeed, it would be interesting to collect some statistics from arbcom and mediation cases.) mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Answering a potential follow-up question, I never abused the power tools. What is more, you may look into my block log, during my whole life I blocked, like, a dozen of live wikipedians only. mikka (t) 03:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well for blocks. What about protection and deletion? Neither of those policies includes any phrases allowing admins substantial judgment, that I can see. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably because you were not closely involved in these issues. Some examples:
  • Deletion involves judgement in terms of what "consensus" during a vote for deletion is.
  • The rule "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing" involves judgement about the word "actively engaged".

And there are more such loopholes. And it is impossible to close them for a number of reasons. Since it is impossible to write a law for each and every case, admins are allowed to make judgement. Of course, if their judgement errs too often, they may be called to order. But again, wikipedia is neither democracy, nor police state. There is one general rule for admins, which, if strictly enforced (and elaborated into an explicit policy; but this is another issue), is a strong barrier to admin's abuse: there should never be admin wars under any circumstances. I am thinking to propose the "1-revert rule" for admin actions. mikka (t) 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]