User talk:Sam Spade/Arbcom questions

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?


 * Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health
 * Requests for arbitration/Wik2
 * Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel
 * Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168
 * Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien
 * Requests for arbitration/Cantus
 * Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur

Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful questions

Generally I would have utilized a "doubling" approach, responding to infractions with a mild (probably a 24 hour block) consequence, with each subsequent infraction followed by an approximate doubling of said punishment (48 hrs, 4 days, etc…). If things are only getting worse, a perma ban can be considered (this should be extremely rare, and perhaps after consultation with Jimbo). At some point, after at least a month of good behaviour (and when there is consensus to do so) they should probably be allowed a clean slate, so to speak. Forgive, but never forget, I say ;)

Early intervention and an emphasis on mediation are also core concepts in my views on arbitration.


 * Specifically, I would have blocked Irismeister for 24 hrs to start, utilizing the afor mentioned doubling approach for each subsequent personal attack or egregious incivility. I would not have prevented him from editing iridology incidentally, but rather would have instituted a similar doubling process of consequence for revert warring if needed.


 * In the case of MnH, I would have responded quite similarly to the committee, but would have prefered to have been able to give him a milder (say 24 hr) punishment in the beginning, followed by the afor mentioned doubling process for each subsequent infraction. I would not have banned him from editing any specific page


 * In the case of wik, I would have deferred to the judgment of Laird Jimbo (hollowed be his name) and permanently banned him for berserking. I would however have preferred to have nipped the situation in the bud well over a year ago, by utilizing my doubling approach, against not only him, but those who he edit warred with (it takes two to edit war). I also would have temp-blocked those who harassed him (Cantus, etc..).


 * In the case of PV, I would have tried to reason w him (I did) and would have discovered (I eventually did) that he was not salvageable. I would have attempted the doubling process early on, but would have quickly resorted to perm ban once his more gratuitous and intransigent qualities became obvious.


 * Mav v. 168 is an extremely complex matter, which would have best been resolved by mediation. If that were not possible (and I am inclined to insist upon mediation, and to consider a decline of mediation as a mark against a litigant) I would likely have desysopped 168, particularly given his statements that he would continue to defy policy and consensus.
 * in the matter of JRR Trollkien I pretty consistently agree with Camembert, and do not feel that “troll” is an inherently offensive part of a username (although I would be interested in a policy change registering this term as a personal attack, which would make it an offensive term here and unacceptable for a username. Policy changes are not of course part of the arbitration committee's mandate). It may be true that he was a sockpuppet, but the evidence simply was not provided, and so the end result was appropriate.


 * In the matter of Cantus I agree with the result, but would have preferred something more in accordance with my doubling policy.


 * in the matter of ChrisO and Levzur, I again agree with the ruling of the committee, but would have preferred a decision more mindful of the doubling policy.

Sam [Spade] 18:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)