Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Spade
Questions
Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A:I am 27 and study psychology.
Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
A:No clue, but I am certain I will be able to fulfil my duties.
Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.
A:User:Sam Spade/Contributions
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A:No. When elected or appointed I will disclose such info to Jimbo and the other arbiters.
- Thank you for your responses. Looking at your final response, you are, as of date, the only candidate to refuse to make available information about the other accounts you have edited under. I see no problem in having multiple accounts as long as none are used abusively, counter to WP policies, or to deny responsibility for the edits. I'd be grateful if you'd reconsider, as your refusal to divulge implies (however wrongly) that there is something there you are looking to hide, whereas openness would allow myself, and other voters, to consider your WP edits in the whole. Kind regards, jguk 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I of course disagree, and discourage other candidates from disclosing such informations. Sam Spade 23:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- People don't often try to bullshit me. My best physical aspect is my peircing eyes... have a look ;)
- I am a psyche major mainly because of my natural skill at analysing and evaluating others, and the fact that they so often open up to me and tell me about their personal horrors, dreams and tragedies.
- I have often been both a salesman and a sociological/political/market researcher, so it is usually my job to be aware of when people are telling the truth, or when they are simply telling me what they think I want to hear. The secret is you can trust everyone. Just trust them to do what they do, once you know who they are. Trust them to speak in their own language. Trust them to be themselves. Sam Spade 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do whats best for the encyclopedia first, for the community second, and individuals third. I never allow rules (esp. joke rules like IAR) to interfere w these goals. Sam Spade 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Questions from User:-Ril-
- The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you
Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?
--Victim of signature fascism 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. I feel there should be a neutral, verifiable, peer reviewed sum total of human knowledge. I favor the distrubution of such via open source. I would not recuse myself based on topics, but rather based on individuals and my history w them.
- My willingness to contest the opinions of arbiters, particularly regarding their lack of recusals is likely of near legendary proportions. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Straw_poll#No_more_appointees, and etc...
- I think the appointed arbcom has done a rather bad job of this on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others, starting w their flagrant bias in listing involved parties. These arbiters egregious political bias is a clear indicator that Jimbo and his appointed arbiters should not be deciding who is and is not fit to judge. It would seem that WP:TINC needs to be deleted based on recent events.