Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006‎ | Candidate statements

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bonaparte (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 7 January 2006 (Bonaparte.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Expanded statement

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 fis 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.
  • 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". mikka (t) 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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 reverring 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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Mikkalai&oldid=34233164"