Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Candidate statements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bensaccount (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 13 December 2005 (→Question from Bensaccount). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]
I of course disagree, and discourage other candidates from disclosing such informations. Sam Spade 23:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BDell555

Q: Can you please explain why you believe "Jimbo and the other arbiters" are entitled to disclosure(s) that voters/the general public is not. Can you also comment on the importance, if any, of transparency in adjudication.Bdell555 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much an entitlement I plan to give them, as much as it is one they already have. Jimbo owns the site, and he and the other arbiters can surely find a way to check if a given account is a sockpuppet. Ergo, it is reasonable (and required by policy I believe) for me to disclose such informations to them. Regarding transparency, everything should be transparent except information that could harm someone if made public. Things like peoples RL names and addresses or whatnot could be kept confidential, for example. Sam Spade 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
  • 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.

Sam Spade 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Steve block

Could you clarify your statement:

  • 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? Steve block talk 10:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

? 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. Sam Spade 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wikipedia needs to go a completely different route. I think we need to reward one another for our good works. I think we need to criticise and punish each other far less. A ratio of 1 punishment/complaint to every five rewards/compliments sounds about right to me. Sam Spade 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bensaccount

In the past you have asserted that you make no effort to differentiate fact from opinion. Is this still your position? Bensaccount 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That begs the question. Did I ever say that? Where? What is truth? This is an encyclopedia w a NPOV policy, our job is to cite opinions in a neutral manner, not adjudicate on absolute truth. Sam Spade 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Human/Archive10. If you have to ask that question (in the context of the article you are editing) you should not make any edits. You need to be able to differentiate fact from opinion so that you can check facts. It is not enough to limit yourself to checking for the validity of quotations. Was that your final answer? Bensaccount 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:NatusRoma

Is the Spade & Archer detective agency still active? If so, will it become inactive if you become an arbitrator? If it will remain active, will your membership in it continue? NatusRoma 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its only marginally active, and I don't see any reason why that would change if I were elected. Best case scenario it would take off, and provide an invaluable resource to the committee (much like the WP:AMA).

Question from Ted Wilkes

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support a code of conduct, altho I do not at this time take a stand on the particulars of your proposal (my off the cuff sentiment is that your proposal does not go far enough). Sam Spade 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Sam_Spade&oldid=31234062"