Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Ruslik0

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Ruslik0 or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

• I'd be more comfortable with this candidacy if the candidate was running based on his command of and interest in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, rather than because he thinks ArbCom needs a physicist on board. Sorting out matters of scientific fact and fancy are content issues; this is not ArbCom's remit.  RGTraynor  15:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Has very limited mediation and conflict resolution experience, and the example given on the question page is less about mediating, and more about the candidate giving his views and dominating the situation. His statement that he has knowledge useful for content disputes displays poor understanding of the role of ArbCom. Suggest that candidate use such content knowledge in content dispute resolution arenas for a while so community can assess ability to handle such matters. Also there are concerns about candidate's level of understanding of English, and I note that it appears the candidate has misunderstood some questions (or given very naive answers) - for example Lar's Vested Contributors question, and Avraham's "exempt" editors question. SilkTork *^YES! 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Praised by people I trust and contributions seem good on my own cursory check. Good and brief answers to questions (I don't agree with 100% of them but that's fine). The diversity of background and approach he would bring to the committee would be helpful. In particular, his scientific background would help him and the committee navigate the maze of conduct disputes that pertain to scientific articles. (This is different than "solving content disputes in scientific articles" which is outside Arbcom remit) Martinp (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The fact that Ruslik intends to bring the experience from his scientific background to ArbCom is not a bad thing. This doesn't mean he's going to step in and make all kinds of content decisions as an arbitrator. Sometimes arbitrators are asked to make decisions on behavior and policy in science-related cases, and they need to be able to draft decisions whose effects will further the goal of providing accurate scientific information on Wikipedia, as opposed to hindering it. Someone who has experience with the academic world and the peer review process brings an important kind of expertise to this. rspεεr (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• I opposed here. The idea that Ruslik believes arbcom is going to rule on matters of physics or science is very scary to me. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I would like to see more experience in ArbCom areas, though his scientific background is a good thing and is not about making content decisions, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)