From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Aytakin

Hello to everyone and a happy holidays!!!
My name as you know is Aytakin and I have been using and editing at Wikipedia a long time. First without a username and then with my current username. During my time in Wikipedia, I have never been in a argument or a revert war. I always try to discuss everything out instead of attacking. I have always been a great arbitrator and mediator in my whole life and have settled many conflicts. Currently, I am studying law and philosophy on the side and I think these will definitly help me as an Arbitration Committee member.
I will strive to:

1. Decrease the tension created between wikipedians!
2. Make peace in Wikipedia!
3. And help make this the best encyclopedia there is!

So you've seen the rest, now vote for the best, I am Aytakin

[edit] Questions

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

--HK 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A -- I really like the idea of haveing rules for wikipedians to follow in order to make wikipedia better. I also really like the concept of both the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights. But I think the User Bill of Rights could use a bit of work to cover more areas and leave no gray areas. Also in the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct I like the sction on "grounds for recusal", so arbitrators have guidelines to follow. Over all, I think these proposed acts, if you might say, are great ideas and are just the thing to help wikipedia have a great reputation and to become a fun website to visit.--(Aytakin) | Talk 01:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Q -- How would you deal with the ongoing problems on the anarchism page? Harrypotter 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A -- After review of the history of the page and the talk page of the anarchism page, I see that it is in big trouble. Many people are trying to put in their own ideas and beleifs and much of the confusion is about where they came from. Some people are talking about the view of anarchism in another country while others are talking about the view on anarchism in the US. Firstly I would like to say I agree with the decision that the page has been protected to stop the fight. The way I would deal with it is that I would try to come to terms with all parties and agree on a single view on the subject or try to include the other views from other countries into the page.

Until now I've seen that FrancisTyers, the previoius mediator, did a good job in handling the situation and now that he has turned it over to NicholasTurnbull I'm sure he will do a good job too. If elected into the Arbitration Committee, I will try as hard as I can to try and solve the problem with User:NicholasTurnbull.--(Aytakin) | Talk 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Q -- You said you have never been in a argument or edit/revert war, but you wish to serve on the ArbCom. If you have never been involved in one, wouldn't that put you at a disadvantage. I think to understand something you must experince it. Furthermore, is the reason you have never been in a edit war, not because you disagreed or because you have never "had the chance"? CuBiXcRaYfIsH 03:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns over personal attack templates

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 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A -- I very much agree. The arbitration commitee should help explain the policy of Wikipedia to all the members so everyone has knowledge of what they can do or not. We have to spread the word around so every person understands how the system works. --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)