Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Sam Spade

A forum

I am not clear why you don't want this page. Please discuss before blanking it, thanks. --Mrfixter 22:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted Sam's attempt to vandalize the legitimate comments of others regarding his candidacy. His actions are highly suspicious. I'm sorry he's garnered so much negative attention, but that's no justification for a candidate to censor legitimate public commentary on his fitness for office. If he does not want to face public scrutiny, then he shouldn't run.--FeloniousMonk 16:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record

Blankings or deletions of Endorsements by Sam Spade:

18:46, 28 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking) [1]
16:10, 29 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (blank unwanted endorsements) [2]
16:23, 27 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam - blanking) [3]
21:50, 19 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (I want none of this) [4]
12:28, 24 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - moving talk to talk page) [5]
12:26, 24 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - moving oppose to disendorsements) [6]
18:24, 23 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking unwanted endorsements) [7]
13:11, 22 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking unwanted "endorsements") [8]
21:08, 17 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (rm crazy section) [9]

Blankings/Deletions by Eequor:

07:20, 1 Dec 2004 Eequor (Please refer to User:Jimbo Wales' statement.)
06:58, 1 Dec 2004 Eequor (Sam Spade - nuke petty squabbling.)

Related Blankings/Deletions:

06:39, 1 Dec 2004 Eequor m (Comments - cleanup.) Removal of unfavorable comments re: Sam Spade's history on wikipedia from the Endorsements Talk page.[10]
08:24, 1 Dec 2004 Eequor (Comments - current policy encourages users to remove personal attacks.) [11]

Regarding Eequor's Repeated Blanking

Eequor, you mistakenly claim in justifying your repeated deletions of other editor's comments that "there has been neither consensus nor a fair attempt to determine the community's wishes." Clearly you are unaware of 1) how much of a fair attempt to determine the community's wishes, and 2) on the majority who have enjoyed consensus for some time here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements. Further, by deleting unfavorable comments for Sam Spade here and here, your actions show a bias and a complete lack of balance. This is an election. It must be fair and balanced to be competitive and valid. Fairness dictates that either all candidates comments are censored or none are censored. That Sam finds uncomfortable and undesirable how he is viewed by others here on wikipedia is unfortunate but irrelevant. As a candidate, he needs to be subject to the same scrutiny as any other candidate. Your actions tonight have been biased unilateral censorship, plain and simple.--FeloniousMonk 07:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't support the unilateral blanking of the section either, but is having the "for the record" section on this talk page really a helpful way to try to resolve the dispute? It just seems unnecessarily inflamatory to me. Shane King 08:06, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But it's public record in a public election. Quoting Improv:

I feel that, as part of due process, the records of this election must be kept visible to people
These records may be of historical interest, not unlike how we have a lot of articles detailing presidential elections in various countries

Just the sheer amount of controversy around a candidate deleting his own endorsements 9 times himself, and now through a proxy, demands that it be recorded. It's highly unethical. I'll ask it again: Didn't anyone stay awake in PoliSci?--FeloniousMonk 08:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm a proxy now? Apologize at once. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ

ᑐ]] 08:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, right after you do for deleting my comments from your Talk page tonight.--FeloniousMonk 08:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to make it absolutely clear, I already said I do not support the removal of those comments. This is purely about whether this section on the talk page is a productive way to go about things.

The page history already acts as a public record. Drawing extra attention to it like this seems likely to reduce whatever chance there is of resolving the disagreement amicably. Just because there's an election going on doesn't absolve us from the principle of trying to resolve our disputes. Shane King 10:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that, in fairness, either all comments must be removed or none must, and I have attempted to act accordingly. On the occasions that I blanked the comments, I did in fact remove every comment, both positive and negative. As we would seem to be in agreement on this point, I am confused by your allegation of bias.

Please see the discussion on the talk page, where there has been considerable debate on this issue. It is not at all clear whether consensus has been reached. There has been a four day straw poll to determine whether the disendorsements and endorsements pages should be merged, but that does not concern Sam's request, and it would be unfair to draw any conclusions from such a short poll.

If people were actually interested in paying more than lip service to ideas fo community consensus, then conducting a straw poll is miles better than unilateral deletion. People are free to build consensus, if they can. If the cannot, they should respect the community's decision. Saying that, however, this candidate subpage was NOT the subject of the straw poll. I find it a little odd that someone who would set up a poll, would then go and start unilateral deletion of a page without consensus. Consensus is not just for christmas, its for life. --Mrfixter 10:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, it is clear that some part of the community agrees with me. My edits are justified by the opinions of a number of people including Jimbo Wales; I am certainly not acting unilaterally. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ

ᑐ]] 08:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. When I said either all comments must be removed or none must, I meant for all candidates. It's not hard to see that for this to be fair and competitive election, parity in access to relevant candidate information must exist between all candidates. There is informative, highly relevant information that exists only here. Delete that as you have, and uninformed voters are left with only Sam's candidate statement, which only has the most tenuous of relationships with reality. Hardly fair, particularly considering Sam historically deletes uncomfortable questions and information not easily explained away from his Talk page (just as you did from yours tonight). So by necessity either all candidate comments must be removed or none must.

As I said before, that Sam finds it uncomfortable and undesirable how he is viewed by others here on wikipedia is unfortunate but irrelevant; he is a candidate in a public election. As a candidate, he is subject to the same scrutiny as any other candidate whether he cares for it or not. Candidates are, and must be, subjects open to public discussion. Deleting the comments of editors regarding his fitness for office is unethical and not acceptable. By deleting his comments, Sam gains an unfair advantage over the other candidates.

I think you'll find you've underestimated the amount of community support there is for leaving opposing comments, particulary when you count on the Endorsements page itself the number of editors who leave them. There is a standing majority of editors who've spoken out over the last few weeks on the Endorsements Talk page against censoring any opposing comments. All that is left is to make the opposing comments conform to the civility policy and keep those bent on censorship, cronyism and voter manipulation from having their way. I'm not surprised that you are acting as Sam has himself on this page, considering your hasty deletion of polite and legitmate comments left on your Talk page; you and Sam seem to be cut from the same cloth.--FeloniousMonk 08:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...an extremely minor segment of the community would support your vandalistic blanking. Don't cower behind Jimbo Wales either since he apparently doesn't understand the issues and holds a strikingly odd POV contrary to his NPOV policy. Also, if you weren't acting in a biased manner, you'd be blanking the rest of the candidates' pages too. Good luck with that though. You'd be banned. Adraeus 10:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the wikipedia paid more than lip service to its policies, you'd be long since banned, Adraeus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful. Extremely doubtful... especially when one realizes that such a claim stems from an ArbCom candidate with fifteen opposers. Count them... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13... I lost count. There will most likely be more. You don't seem to be well-liked. How's that working for you? Have a nice day. Adraeus 13:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please go easy on the hypocrisy Sam; your abuse of the wikipedia email function to send vulgar insults is evidence enough for you to be in arbitration instead of running for it, were policy to be followed to the letter.--FeloniousMonk 18:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)