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?

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)