Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Spade: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 275:
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 (<warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deeceevoice&oldid=34125877 User:Deeceevoice] *<warning, objectionable content, not school/office safe>). 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. 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?
:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||