Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Skyscrap27

Skyscrap27

talk page

contributing on Wikipedia since: about June 2005
under this Username since: January 2006

contributions

Why am I, as a total newbie, nominating myself for this honorable place? The answer is not quite clear even for me. I would like to help Wikipedia as it's a great project. I see this honorable place as a chance to continue with my work reverting vandalism. I see that I will most likely not get a single vote, but I must give it a try. Just to say, I was there, I tried to make a difference. Thank you. If you give me a vote, thank you very much. :) Skyscrap27 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing on Wikipedia for a few months, but I've only just (a day ago) joined (created a username). Why should I be on an Arbitration Committee? I live in a real world (just like all of us) where fights do happen. When you're arguing with somebody, you don't need anybody to tell you what to do, what to say. Both sides need someone to say they're right. That's compromise. If you're a noob (and a lot of arguing happens between new members), you won't listen to somebody old and experienced (just like parents), first you'll listen to other newbies. If the Arbitration Commitee has a new member, it will gain more influence towards other newbies. You're most likely to listen to a person your "age" than to a old member. Of course, I realize that it's a long shot, but that's what I think. Thank you.

Major opinions:

I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights (with minor objections to rule no. 3).
I agree with the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct (exception is recusion in case arbitrators feel strongly about some case (not someone), and I don't agree with it).
Main job of ArbCom should be to insure growth and evolution of Wikipedia.
ArbCom must be the highest body of Wikipedia and it must decide independently (it must not be under any pressure).
Even more time must be spared to protect Wikipedia from advertising and vandalism.
Vanity should be allowed (very limited, though), as long as in consists of pure facts only, not speculations or bragging.

Please, do ask anything you wish to ask.

Question[edit]

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

--HK 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking this. In most parts, I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights. Let me go over each part:

A rule of law is created by Wikipedia policies, Arbitration policy and Arbitration precedents.

I think that is quite clear. Of course, it's totally impossible. As Wikipedia grows, new rules are needed and, of course, they cannot be written down immediately. But I think it's a goal worth following.

No ex post facto laws.

Of course, I agree. Enough said.

Arbitration Committee members should follow policy and precedent rather than altering it.

Again, yes, I agree, but as there is no perfect rule, some altering will have to be made at all times in order to ensure further growth of Wikipedia, and I'm sure that's what we all want.

Arbitration Committee members and Administrators will support and enforce policy, precedent, and rulings equally for all users and those involved in cases.

Yes, I think everyone agrees with this and that's why Arbitration Committee must be made of members with no "criminal" record as that affects their judgment.

All Administrators must enforce Arbitration Committee rulings.

Arbitration Committee must be the highest dispute-sloving body of the Wikipedia. Yes, I agree.

Users will be notified of the specific reasons for arbitration or other actions.

Purely technical. I agree.

Regulations apply to all Wikipedia users including those with special authorizations.

As in rule no. 5, I agree.

Users may not be penalized for simply participating in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process where such participation is made in good faith.

That's the whole point of Wikipedia and the Committee and Admins are just there to protect it.

As for Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, I fully agree with it. Of course, I do not agree with one particular sentence: Arbitrators should recuse themselves from any case which they feel they cannot fairly participate in due either to strong negative or positive feelings toward the parties or subject matter. I agree with the fact that they should recuse themselves if they have feelings toward the parties, but if they have feelings towards subject, I do not agree. Everybody is entitled to its opinion about the subject matter and the fact that they have an opinion which they will possibly continue having for the rest of the proceedings can be no reason for obligatory recusion. Thank you. Skyscrap27 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames[edit]

What (previous) usernames have you contributed under? If there are IP edits, could you cite some? ≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did write something about Zagreb and/or its surroudings. Of the new edits I would like to point out that I did heavily rewrite Hammamet. Take a look! Skyscrap27 | Talk to me, people! 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over personal attack templates[edit]

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 established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of 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. [1]

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 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time to answer properly, but I must say I agree with everything said. I've been thiniking should I put my political opinions on my user page, like so many users do, and I've decided not to, because on Wikipedia I should not be judged because of what I think, only because what I do (edit...). Thank you. Skyscrap27 | Talk to me, people! 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is going to be pretty demanding in terms of time. Could you expand on your statement that you don't have much time to answer properly? Polling doesn't finish for over a week! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ment I had to go out to do some stuff and that I will be back later (in some 9-10 hours). This was just to explain my short answer. Actually, I'm quite satisfied with what I wrote and I feel there's not much to add. I really did think about posting my political opinions on my userpage in some userboxes (I saw some userboxes like "this user is a leftist", "this user thinks PRC is the real governenment in China"...) but eventually I decided it would do more damage then it would do good (I don't know if anything good would come). Skyscrap27 | Talk to me, people! 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]