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

Revision as of 00:25, 28 December 2005

Revision as of 00:30, 28 December 2005

Line 211:

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)