Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Spade: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 65:
[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
==Question from [[User:
Could you clarify your statement:
Line 71:
*''I will be especially severe with administrators who violate policy, misuse their status, and disgrace their office. I will be particularly leniant with new users who clearly mean well, and I am particularly inclined to allow experienced users to act as mentors in such cases.''
Does each case not deserve judgement based on its own merits? [[User:
? We probably disagree as to what the words "merit" and "responsibility" mean. Suffice to say I would take individuals as well as group dynamics into account, rather than acting as some sort of automaton. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 100:
:I support a code of conduct, altho I do not at this time take a stand on the particulars of your proposal (my off the cuff sentiment is that your proposal does not go far enough). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
==Question from Xoloz==
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:
Line 114:
Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
== Question from SEWilco ==
Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
Line 192:
Alabamaboy, Felonious and Sam resolved their differences during Felonious' Rfadmin. Raking it up now serves absolutely no purpose. It took months before resolution occurred. Please can you let it lie, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If you have evidence Sam makes racist insults, though, please bring it here. [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly don't do that. Indeed I have made the point more than once that being online, we have little basis for assuming one anothers race. "Black" (how do we know?) editors have no more, and no less right to edit any subject than anyone else, no more, and no less say. There are not any special rights granted on racial grounds, and there should not be. We shouldn't have to care about what race, politics, or etc... another contributer might have, nor be insulted based upon our own. That is why I oppose DC's controversial actions. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No I didn't believe you would engage in such activity. I don't think the race of a person should be taken into consideration at all myself either. Their cultural background and current cultural situation is much more important, and it seems to me that there are all sorts of (US centred) political stuff going on in that Rfc, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:Which one, we've mentioned 2 or 3 RfC's now ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I imagine the latest one, as I am aware of the issues around it but am much too ignorant of race issues in the States to get involved, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad he worked out the issue with [[User:FeloniousMonk]] and I never said he made racist insults. However, the fact that he responds to my concerns by insultingly stating "How you became an admin in so little time, w so few edits is beyond me" suggests to me that he should not be an arbitrator. In addition, to say "I have already admitted to making the occasional slip of the tongue every 5,000 edits or so" is not a defense. That's like saying I'm not a criminal because I only break the law every now and then.
However, the ealier issues I raised are not the only personal attacks Sam Spade has engaged in. For example, in this [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others|very recent arbitration]], the arbitrators found by a 7 to 0 vote that "Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cberlet&diff=prev&oldid=15584503] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&diff=next&oldid=13498444]." As a result of this finding, Sam Spade was cautioned to avoid personal attacks. All of this evidence shows a pattern of insults which continues to this day. As a result, Sam Spade's ability to be a fair arbitrator should be questioned.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[[Ignoratio elenchi]]? try following Raul around sometime. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Sam wasn't sanctioned by the arbcom where other editors were also tells its own tale. I guess my question to Alabamaboy is "should Sam's record of occasionally getting wound up in the very dificult editing conditions that wikipedia has right now mean that we don't want him in the arbcom?" Do we prefer those who play the system, because they think power within it is more important than the encyclopedia, as members of our arbcom. At least Sam has shown he is a normal human being aware of the stresses involved in editing wikipedia, which could be useful experience in dealing with the stressed outness of others (and it is the wikistress that creates the Rfc's, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:The funny thing is that I agree with you--people get upset and there is nothing wrong with that. As I've said, this whole Deeceevoice thing has ticked me off. Despite that, though, I have not personally insulted anyone during the affair (although I have made pointed comments about the overall affair but not to any individual editor). That said, I don't know if Sam would be a good arbitrator or not--and I guess it doesn't matter, since that is not my decision to make. '''I do want to publically state, though, that he is an excellent editor with a proven track record of working to improve Wikipedia.''' (emphasis provided by Alabamaboy) In the end, all of this must be considered during this decision process.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well that is very nice of you, thanks. If you want to know what I find objectionable about DC, have a look at her user page. I think she is violating [[WP:POINT]] if nothing else. As far as yourself, you havn't insulted me that I have noticed, but suggesting that DC's RfAr was similar to a lynching struck me as extremely hyperbolic and contentious. She certainly is not being singled out for her race, nor will she be mistreated, altho those are both crimes I feel she is guilty of (singling others out for their race and mistreating them). As far as if I would be a good arbiter, I think reviewing my edits at length is a better judge of that than ancient RfC's and the like. Personally I'd like it if we were all alot more civil, myself included. This is to be an intellectually rigourous endeavor, is it not? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:Definately should be as intellectually rigourous as humanly possible. I'm fully aware that Deeceevoice can be insulting and all, especially since I've been on the receiving end of some of her insults. That said, the reason I've gotten so worked up over her situation is that it does appear to me to be a vendetta driven by a few users (not you). I'm also aware that my use of lynching is "hyperbolic and contentious" but, to be honest, that was partly my intention. In private e-mail discussions, several other Wikipedian editors and myself kept coming back to this word to describe our feelings for what is happening to Deeceevoice. I finally decided that if I (and others) were saying this in private, it was dishonest not to say it in public. The use of the word was to let others know that this was how severely several of us see the affair. Anyway, all of this is now moving on. The arbitrators will make their ruling (likely citing Deeceevoice for not being civil) and then it will be her business how she deals with it. As I said, you are an excellent editor who, it appears, just gets worked at times over issues. Thanks for responding. Your last comment puts my concerns to rest on this matter. '''If I had a vote for arbitrator (which I don't) I'd vote for you.''' (emphasis again provided by Alabamaboy) Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again, nice to meet you, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==
''(Being asked of all candidates)''
''Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?''
''As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?''
''[[WP:NPOV|wikipedia has a policy of NPOV]]. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a '''substantial''' opinion or fact that '''contradicts''' your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Judges arn't supposed to be removed from office ever. Thats why its so important to choose them carefully. I'd be more likely to support life terms than the communities ability to remove arbiters from their position prematurely.
And yes, I do that all the time. Have a look @ [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#Matt_Furey_criticism_link|this]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal]]?
2. Are there any parts of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
4. Have you voted over at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]]? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#I will follow whatever rules I can.
#Please scroll up, this has been discussed a couple times before.
#I support more radical changes, but do not oppose modest proposals like small enlargements.
#I put a vote or 2 there, you can have a look. I disliked nearly all proposals, and didn't bother putting my own ideas as they are very radical, and as such would be better said by Jimbo, Mav, or someone of that sort.
[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Questions from [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]]==
1. The so-called "[[User:Sam Spade/Detective agency]]" (also known as "Spade and Archer") seems utterly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Arbitration Committee. Above you have stated that you would not dissolve this "agency" if elected. Please explain how creating a group whose stated purpose is to gather information on potential trouble-makers makes you suitable for the ArbCom.
2. You have admitted religious-based bias against certain groups, activities and behaviours; how can you hold such biased views and yet remain impartial? Or do you intend to recuse yourself from any "contentious" cases, and if so, why should you be elected rather than someone unbiased?
3. You have become embroiled in numerous editing conflicts, some of them long-term and vicious. Please explain how this record should be interpreted as making you suitable for the ArbCom.
[[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#Because being informed is an important part of any job, particularly one such as that.
#I'm not sure what your refering to, please be specific, and provide links to specific quotes if possible. I am unaware of having made statements unflattering to my campaign for arbiter in these regards.
#I am well versed in [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|Resolving disputes]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
==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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&curid=895730&diff=34790720&oldid=34790144#Template:User_against_scientology|recent templates] surviving AfD that appear to contrast with [[WP:NPA|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 [[WP:NPOV|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.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=34797833&oldid=34788153]
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? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
:Wouldn't you prefer to know if the editor you are speaking to hates jews? or scientologists, or what-have-you? if you ask me its very generous of them to go out on a limb like that to describe their prejudices. Let us consider an editor who has an "I hate jews" w swastika template. He would probably have an obvious POV on certain articles, but not necessarilly [[botany]] articles, for example. Would you like to know that?
:Some people would like to know, and would like to see him banned based on his POV. Some would rather not know, and remain unaware of the strong feelings (of whatever kind) that editor holds. Still others would see him as a beneift to the encylopedia, so long as he obeys its guidelines and strives for inclusive NPOV.
:Some might say "your a hypocrite, what about (<small><small>'''''*<warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe>*'''''</small></small> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deeceevoice&oldid=34125877 User:Deeceevoice] <small><small>'''''*</warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe>*'''''</small></small>)". Well, I am not a process wonk, or a rules lawyer, or whatever the heck some people think I am. I am able to see where the line is drawn between useful display of POV, and disruption. Content which is informative is good, content designed to startle and distress is not.
:Have a look @ [[User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases]]. Do you feel the worse for having seen that? Did it add to, or take away from your ability to edit co-operatively w me? Was it disruptive in any way?
:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a very good response, and I'm very happy with it.
But so that you understand the direction ''my'' question is coming from, I'll clarify my opinion. I have no problems with statement of personal opinions on userpages. An editor saying that he believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Zinoviev Letter to be valid? Fine, it tells me a lot about why he makes the edits he does, and may help me to work with him. Although it may stray into advocacy, I don't think it need concern us except where it becomes, say, incitement to hatred or violence. Someone saying, for instance, "Muslims are all evil" anywhere on Wikipedia, I'd block, and I've done so for repeatedly saying that.
What concerns me is the amplifying effect of popping these statements into a cute little button that people stick on their userpage. Firstly it's a campaigning tool, enabling the systematic promotion of external political ideas through Wikipedia. Secondly it's an organizational tool. By clicking on an associated category or following the "what links here" link for the template, editors can get a list of like-minded people. Good if they're all people interested in archeology, perhaps not so good if they're all people who have said that they believe the zinoviev letter was a genuine document. I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between our opinions on self expression, so could you comment on these latter concerns, please? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||