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

Revision as of 13:02, 15 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:30, 2 December 2007

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 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 280:

: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 (<bigsmall><bigsmall>'''''*<warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe>*'''''</bigsmall></bigsmall> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deeceevoice&oldid=34125877 User:Deeceevoice] <bigsmall><bigsmall>'''''*</warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe>*'''''</bigsmall></bigsmall>)". 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)