Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Spade: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 200:
: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.
Line 206 ⟶ 208:
[[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)
| |||