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)
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:
Please, do ask anything you wish to ask.
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)
Thank you for asking this. In most parts, I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights. Let me go over each part:
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.
Of course, I agree. Enough said.
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.
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.
Arbitration Committee must be the highest dispute-sloving body of the Wikipedia. Yes, I agree.
Purely technical. I agree.
As in rule no. 5, I agree.
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)
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)
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)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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)
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)
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)
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:
Please, do ask anything you wish to ask.
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)
Thank you for asking this. In most parts, I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights. Let me go over each part:
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.
Of course, I agree. Enough said.
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.
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.
Arbitration Committee must be the highest dispute-sloving body of the Wikipedia. Yes, I agree.
Purely technical. I agree.
As in rule no. 5, I agree.
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)
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)
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)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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)
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)