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

User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases

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.

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.

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 (What is truth, 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 misquotations. Was that your final answer? Bensaccount 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree regarding your definitions and assumptions. I stand by what I said @ Talk:Human/Archive10#Neutrality_Disputed. Sam Spade 20:34, 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]

Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad rule. It, and the mindset which created it are contrary to the rigour necessary in producing a high quality encyclopedia. Sam Spade 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I love you. ;) Xoloz 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:D I was thinking of sending you flowers, but your user page suggested your not my type (too much jabba the hutt, not enough Princess Leia XD

Cheers, Sam Spade 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, I even helped edit it, if you recall. Sam Spade 16:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being rude is unacceptable and drives off other contributors. WP:Civility is among our most important policies.
Psychology. No one is rude to me IRL, at least not intentionally, and to my face. I am a big dangerous looking bald guy, who listens to metal and stands up for gun rights. As far as constructive criticism from profs, thats pretty standard, and usually involves grammer. I'm an A or B student, so there isn't much sharp criticism. My primary job as a student is to give the prof what he wants, which they usually make pretty clear. My secondary job is to amuse the prof, since his job is oftentimes dry and boring. If you asked them about me, they would probably say I am stimulating, friendly and possessed of a good sense of humor. For a criticism they may say I am long winded or inclined to bring out distracting or contentious topics from otherwise standard material.
I think it doesn't go nearly far enough. None of these mild suggestions should be ignored by the arbiters, but this proposal needs to be rewritten to increase accountability and facilitate enforcement.

Sam Spade 16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more than I do now.
Have a look at my edits sometime, I don't edit a specific area. I tend to focus on a given page or group of pages for a period of time, but not eternally.
There are pages that would be the worse if I had no involvement w them, yes. Some pages might not be created at all. But I have no intention for ARBCOM duties to prevent me from editing an encyclopedia. My thought was that they would help me edit an encyclopedia by clearing up some of the poisonous atmosphere around the wiki.

Sam Spade 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:SqueakBox

What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? SqueakBox 16:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it, for the reason that open voting has been opposed thruout time. It promotes cliques, and all the uglines that goes with them. Normally I treat admins w a bit more respect, in a normal editing setting. For this reason I will hold them to a far higher standard when they appear before the ARBCOM.

Sam Spade 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you hold experienced editors to higher standards than inexperienced ones? SqueakBox 17:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least regarding mistakes where experience should have been a factor. Sam Spade 17:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Alabamaboy: Why do you make insulting comments to others?

I am curious why you make insulting comments to others yet still want to be an arbitrator? I first reference a comment you made to me during a discussion about Deeceevoice: "Your aggressively arrogant ignorance is not helping make your case, Alabamaboy. There is no way you can know Justforasecond well enough to see into his heart that way. You can have an opinion, but possess no special claim to the truth. I can see from your user name that you don't mind being called "boy", but others clearly do. Sam Spade 17:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)" [1]

I also reference comments raised during a Request for Comment against you.[2] This RfC was eventually deleted. Now, I must admit I know nothing of why it was deleted or the validity of the issues raised, but I'd still like to hear your take on the comments attributed to you in this RfC. The fact that you appear to trade insults with other users does not encourage me that your would be a good arbitrator. However, a solid explanation for these comments would go a long way to alleviating this concern.

Anyway, I look forward to your responses. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Why are you linking to a deleted article I can't even read? Please review the statement you made here and others regarding DC which I find hysterical and offensive. I honestly can't tell if your trolling, or are just that over-the-top, and that is a bad sign. As per personal attacks, I admit I have made some, but IMO I have behaved far better here on the wiki than would be expected in an in-person volunteer environment. Think about the number of edits I have made with every talk page soundbyte vulnerable to later rehashing. For over 30,000 edits, I'd say I'm doing very good. Sam Spade 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]