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


 * User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases

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)

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)


 * 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)

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, and etc...


 * I think the appointed arbcom has done a rather bad job of this on 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)

Question from Hiding
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? Hiding talk 10:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

? 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * We don't agree regarding your definitions and assumptions. I stand by what I said @ Talk:Human/Archive10. Sam Spade 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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 Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Question from Xoloz
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)


 * 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)


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



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

Question from SEWilco
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))


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

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy 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)


 * 1) Being rude is unacceptable and drives off other contributors. WP:Civility is among our most important policies.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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


 * 1) 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?


 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Not much more than I do now.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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)

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)


 * 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)

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


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

Question from Alabamaboy
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)"

I also reference comments raised during a Request for Comment against you. 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)


 * 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)


 * Oh, Good Grief, your an administrator! Sam Spade 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your continuing insults speak for themself. As for the deleted link, it is visible to admins. If you wish, I can undelete it so everyone can see the insulting comments you have made to other users. And yes, I am passionate about what is being done to Deeceevoice. To my knowledge, though, I have never insulted anyone. However, I do state my opinion on matters, which to my knowledge is encouraged here at Wikipedia. Anyway, your RfC references insulting e-mails you have sent people and instances like this one where you called another editor an asshole. Would you like me to undelete the RfC so you can see it? Hope you will explain all of this. Thanks, --Alabamaboy 14:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam's continuing insults? None here I can see. Please don't undelete the Rfc, which I had put a spedy delete on (or was somehow involved in the process) and needs to be seen in the light of the Rfc for Felonious Monk. I would remind you that Rfc's on editors not endorsed within 48 hours are subject to speedy deletion, and that you have no reasonable cause to undelete this one, SqueakBox 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why I didn't undelete it. And to me, the fact that Sam Spade immediately said I was trolling by raising this issue is insulting.

However, the greater point I raised here were the insults referenced within the RfC. In addition to calling User:FeloniousMonk an asshole, Sam Spade evidently admitted to sending this e-mail by Wikipedia's e-mail function:
 * Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:36:29 GMT
 * To: "FeloniousMonk" 
 * Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
 * From: "Sam Spade" 
 * Fuck you, you ignorant rat bastard

He also insulted User:Mel Etitis by saying " I would appreciate not being harassed by popularity contest winning nube admins who have no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it. Sam Spade 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)"

There is also this insult to User:FeloniousMonk: "And shame on you for wasting everyones valuable time with these antics. Kindly do something useful with yourself, I'm here to read and edit an encyclopedia, not to fuck about w personal politics to please your ego. Sam Spade 08:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

All of this shows that Sam Spade has been having a long running feud with some users, in particular User:FeloniousMonk. Obviously I don't know all of the background to this and it appears that User:FeloniousMonk was involved in giving back the insults. However, since Sam Spade wants to be an arbitrator, I believe he must explain this insulting behavior. If he didn't want to be an arbitrator, then all of this wouldn't be that big a deal (in my opinion). I do find it ironic, though, that he has been taking Deeceevoice to task for her use of insults during discussions when it appears he does the same thing. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to go digging for all this. I have already admitted to making the occasional slip of the tongue every 5,000 edits or so. You have made a total of 2,655 edits on 797 distinct pages, beginning in 2005-04-14 20:38:26 How you became an admin in so little time, w so few edits is beyond me. I never accused you of trolling, but rather admitted I was uncertain if you were, based on the unusual nature of your activities I have percived. For example, why you are choosing to dig up dirt from before your time is a bit perpelexing. Have you found anything I have done comparable to the sort of filth and hatemongering DC engages in and promotes? Feel free to keep looking, but I havn't the time to waste on such mudslinging. There is a reason why there is no disendorsements page this year. Sam Spade 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, Felonious and Sam resolved their differences during Felonious' Rfadmin. Raking it up now serves absolutely no purpose. It took months before resolution occurred. Please can you let it lie, SqueakBox 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have evidence Sam makes racist insults, though, please bring it here. SqueakBox 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't do that. Indeed I have made the point more than once that being online, we have little basis for assuming one anothers race. "Black" (how do we know?) editors have no more, and no less right to edit any subject than anyone else, no more, and no less say. There are not any special rights granted on racial grounds, and there should not be. We shouldn't have to care about what race, politics, or etc... another contributer might have, nor be insulted based upon our own. That is why I oppose DC's controversial actions. Sam Spade 16:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No I didn't believe you would engage in such activity. I don't think the race of a person should be taken into consideration at all myself either. Their cultural background and current cultural situation is much more important, and it seems to me that there are all sorts of (US centred) political stuff going on in that Rfc, SqueakBox 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Which one, we've mentioned 2 or 3 RfC's now ;) Sam Spade 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I imagine the latest one, as I am aware of the issues around it but am much too ignorant of race issues in the States to get involved, SqueakBox 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad he worked out the issue with User:FeloniousMonk and I never said he made racist insults. However, the fact that he responds to my concerns by insultingly stating "How you became an admin in so little time, w so few edits is beyond me" suggests to me that he should not be an arbitrator. In addition, to say "I have already admitted to making the occasional slip of the tongue every 5,000 edits or so" is not a defense. That's like saying I'm not a criminal because I only break the law every now and then.

However, the ealier issues I raised are not the only personal attacks Sam Spade has engaged in. For example, in this very recent arbitration, the arbitrators found by a 7 to 0 vote that "Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet ." As a result of this finding, Sam Spade was cautioned to avoid personal attacks. All of this evidence shows a pattern of insults which continues to this day. As a result, Sam Spade's ability to be a fair arbitrator should be questioned.--Alabamaboy 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi? try following Raul around sometime. Sam Spade 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Sam wasn't sanctioned by the arbcom where other editors were also tells its own tale. I guess my question to Alabamaboy is "should Sam's record of occasionally getting wound up in the very dificult editing conditions that wikipedia has right now mean that we don't want him in the arbcom?" Do we prefer those who play the system, because they think power within it is more important than the encyclopedia, as members of our arbcom. At least Sam has shown he is a normal human being aware of the stresses involved in editing wikipedia, which could be useful experience in dealing with the stressed outness of others (and it is the wikistress that creates the Rfc's, SqueakBox 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is that I agree with you--people get upset and there is nothing wrong with that. As I've said, this whole Deeceevoice thing has ticked me off. Despite that, though, I have not personally insulted anyone during the affair (although I have made pointed comments about the overall affair but not to any individual editor). That said, I don't know if Sam would be a good arbitrator or not--and I guess it doesn't matter, since that is not my decision to make. I do want to publically state, though, that he is an excellent editor with a proven track record of working to improve Wikipedia. (emphasis provided by Alabamaboy) In the end, all of this must be considered during this decision process.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that is very nice of you, thanks. If you want to know what I find objectionable about DC, have a look at her user page. I think she is violating WP:POINT if nothing else. As far as yourself, you havn't insulted me that I have noticed, but suggesting that DC's RfAr was similar to a lynching struck me as extremely hyperbolic and contentious. She certainly is not being singled out for her race, nor will she be mistreated, altho those are both crimes I feel she is guilty of (singling others out for their race and mistreating them). As far as if I would be a good arbiter, I think reviewing my edits at length is a better judge of that than ancient RfC's and the like. Personally I'd like it if we were all alot more civil, myself included. This is to be an intellectually rigourous endeavor, is it not? Sam Spade 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Definately should be as intellectually rigourous as humanly possible. I'm fully aware that Deeceevoice can be insulting and all, especially since I've been on the receiving end of some of her insults. That said, the reason I've gotten so worked up over her situation is that it does appear to me to be a vendetta driven by a few users (not you). I'm also aware that my use of lynching is "hyperbolic and contentious" but, to be honest, that was partly my intention. In private e-mail discussions, several other Wikipedian editors and myself kept coming back to this word to describe our feelings for what is happening to Deeceevoice. I finally decided that if I (and others) were saying this in private, it was dishonest not to say it in public. The use of the word was to let others know that this was how severely several of us see the affair. Anyway, all of this is now moving on. The arbitrators will make their ruling (likely citing Deeceevoice for not being civil) and then it will be her business how she deals with it. As I said, you are an excellent editor who, it appears, just gets worked at times over issues. Thanks for responding. Your last comment puts my concerns to rest on this matter. If I had a vote for arbitrator (which I don't) I'd vote for you. (emphasis again provided by Alabamaboy) Best, --Alabamaboy 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, nice to meet you, Sam Spade 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Judges arn't supposed to be removed from office ever. Thats why its so important to choose them carefully. I'd be more likely to support life terms than the communities ability to remove arbiters from their position prematurely.

And yes, I do that all the time. Have a look @ this. Sam Spade 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I will follow whatever rules I can.
 * 2) Please scroll up, this has been discussed a couple times before.
 * 3) I support more radical changes, but do not oppose modest proposals like small enlargements.
 * 4) I put a vote or 2 there, you can have a look. I disliked nearly all proposals, and didn't bother putting my own ideas as they are very radical, and as such would be better said by Jimbo, Mav, or someone of that sort.

Sam Spade 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Exploding Boy
1. The so-called "User:Sam Spade/Detective agency" (also known as "Spade and Archer") seems utterly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Arbitration Committee. Above you have stated that you would not dissolve this "agency" if elected. Please explain how creating a group whose stated purpose is to gather information on potential trouble-makers makes you suitable for the ArbCom.

2. You have admitted religious-based bias against certain groups, activities and behaviours; how can you hold such biased views and yet remain impartial? Or do you intend to recuse yourself from any "contentious" cases, and if so, why should you be elected rather than someone unbiased?

3. You have become embroiled in numerous editing conflicts, some of them long-term and vicious. Please explain how this record should be interpreted as making you suitable for the ArbCom.

Exploding Boy 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Because being informed is an important part of any job, particularly one such as that.
 * 2) I'm not sure what your refering to, please be specific, and provide links to specific quotes if possible. I am unaware of having made statements unflattering to my campaign for arbiter in these regards.
 * 3) I am well versed in Resolving disputes. Sam Spade 12:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):


 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

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? --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 ( **  User:Deeceevoice  **  )". 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. Content which is informative is good, content designed to startle and distress is not.


 * 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? Was it disruptive in any way?


 * Sam Spade 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very good response, and I'm very happy with it.

But so that you understand the direction my question is coming from, I'll clarify my opinion. I have no problems with statement of personal opinions on userpages. An editor saying that he believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Zinoviev Letter to be valid? Fine, it tells me a lot about why he makes the edits he does, and may help me to work with him. Although it may stray into advocacy, I don't think it need concern us except where it becomes, say, incitement to hatred or violence. Someone saying, for instance, "Muslims are all evil" anywhere on Wikipedia, I'd block, and I've done so for repeatedly saying that.

What concerns me is the amplifying effect of popping these statements into a cute little button that people stick on their userpage. Firstly it's a campaigning tool, enabling the systematic promotion of external political ideas through Wikipedia. Secondly it's an organizational tool. By clicking on an associated category or following the "what links here" link for the template, editors can get a list of like-minded people. Good if they're all people interested in archeology, perhaps not so good if they're all people who have said that they believe the zinoviev letter was a genuine document. I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between our opinions on self expression, so could you comment on these latter concerns, please? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)