Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Spade: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:58, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:30, 2 December 2007

(15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 65:

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==Question from [[User:Steve blockHiding|Steve blockHiding]]==

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:Steve blockHiding|Steve blockHiding]] [[User talk:Steve blockHiding|talk]] 10:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

? 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 229:

--[[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==

Line 239 ⟶ 243:

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. &mdash;[[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)