Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Spade/Detective agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sam Spade/Detective agency

  • VfD should not be the place to discuss WikiProjects. Instead, if you think we should (or should not) have a policy on inappropriate projects, please join the general discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

While it may be unorthodox to list a user sub-page for deletion, I believe that this page and the so-called "organization" or "agency" it promotes violate the spirit of Wikipedia. The introduction reads:

Welcome to the Sam Spade detective agency Our goal is to provide top-notch investigative service to our clients, promote justice and discourage corruption, and to combine our efforts as effectively as possible. We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place. Those wishing to be public members may contact me on the talk page. Those wishing to remain confidential may contact me by email or IM.

Recent discussion has deplored the increasing pseudo-legal language being used on various Wikipedia pages, and this takes it way beyond the limit. Exploding Boy 23:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as it is a user page. If this organisation does anything that violates the spirit of wikipedia then it should be dealt with at the appropriate time and place. Right now this page is not doing any harm, and can be considered part of Sam Spade's wiki work, --SqueakBox 23:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a useful concept and it's in the user's own space! — Davenbelle 23:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any unofficial, unsanctioned, ad hoc organization that seeks as it's stated goal to collect "evidence" of other editors that they consider "dubious" for later use in actions like RFC/RFAR smacks of witch hunts, is antithetical to wikipedia's spirit, will have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas that Sam & crew deem "dubious," and will lend itself to abuses in the form of vexatious litigation, malicious prosecution, etc. Consider the group's statement of purpose: "We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place." This there anything that more utterly violates the spirit of wikipedia? Taken with Sam's recent history of frivolous actions these new efforts to amass evidence prior to any specific charges and recruiting others to do the same on his behalf show Sam to be little more than a vexatious and mendacious litigant looking to expand his reach and scope. Furthermore, the fact that this is a privately organized effort directed at selected individuals will heavily discount the value of any "evidence" this group obtains and presents, and will cast serious doubt on the motive of any subsequent action that Sam or any of the crew that he assembles are party to. Vexatious and malicious prosecution are serious concerns at wikipedia and far too common, and this sort of experiment lends itself to barratry quite easily. That concern is justified here considering this organization is being instituted and promoted by an individual who has an extensive history of litigation [1], bad behavior [2], side-stepping policies[3]&[4], and refusing to atone for his misdeeds when caught [5] here at wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this article goes against the spirit of good editing and conduct on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a user it should be taken up with admin, not a "detective agency". Megan1967 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, highly inappropriate user page. Radiant_* 07:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is vfd really the place to discuss user pages? Wouldn't Rfc, arbitration, mediation or some other process be superior? Making this decision was not the purpose behind vfd. Meelar (talk) 07:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. 'Delete' because I think that it is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and, frankly, because SS's editing and Talk-page history makes him one of the last people I'd trust with something like this. 'Weak' because it is his User space (though there are still conditions of use), and because I doubt that it would do anything but become (at most) a mild irritant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not a big fan of this page or of its creator, but it is in userspace, and I don't believe that VfD is the appropriate forum for questionable userspace content like this. This concern should go to RFC or, if necessary, arbitration. Firebug 09:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • comment quite a bleak example of wikilawyering. This sort of activism is certainly not welcome, dispute resolution is a necessary evil, and not the point of Wikipedia. It is in user space, however, and I trust that the community will react appropriately to such attempts, regardless whether it be "professional" wikilawyering or "amateur" wikilawyering. If it is considered disruptive, the arbcom should deal with it, not vfd. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree with Meelar, Firebug and dab. VfD is only for articles, things that matter to our readers, not to decide what particular user pages are (not) in violation of Wikipedia's community spirit/conduct policies. Take it to RfC or RfAr. This page can be deleted if Sam Spade slaps a speedy tag on it or if the ArbCom tells him to take it down. VfD has been flooded with user sub-pages recently; I don't like this trend one bit. JRM 11:51, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    • How exactly is it flooded? I've seen two user pages on VfD in the past month. Radiant_* 14:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      This is called "unfounded hyperbole", and it works quite well as long as people don't counter it with facts. Stricken. I still don't like it, though. VfDs on articles and VfDs on user pages are completely different things. JRM 15:10, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    In addition, if consensus should be we do decide this sort of thing on VfD, I'd like that to be said more explicitly. Current discussions are bogged down by questions of legitimacy, so I don't think we can rely on "we'll figure it out as we go along" anymore—especially considering Sam's diatribe below. Do we really want this sort of in-fighting to bloat VfD? JRM 12:13, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though it's on his userspace, it's still on Wikipedia, and is inappropriate and against the spirit of the 'pedia. Agree with FeloniousMonk's comments above. — Asbestos | Talk 11:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Removed my vote after reading comments below. Still think it's against the spirit of the community, but deleting this would amount to censorship. It's his userpage. — Asbestos | Talk 13:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Spurious WP:POINT, read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy and Wikipedia:User page. Voters might be interested in EB's long history of harassment against myself ever since I voted against featured article status for gay bathhouse. This flagrant misuse of VfD by an admin will not be ignored. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to note, user subpages may indeed be listed on WP:VfD. Wikipedia:User page#Removal, where vfd is listed as the approved method of requesting a user subpage be deleted. — Asbestos | Talk 12:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Interesting. Seems to be quite old, too. But this should be listed in the deletion policy as well, then. JRM 12:32, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    It is. Problem with page: Inappropriate user page. Solution: Talk to the user; if that doesn't work, come back here. Problem with page: Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases. Solution: List on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. —Korath (Talk) 12:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    You know, I should really sit down and read stuff sometimes. Aside from wasting people's time, it would make me look like less of an idiot, which is nice too. Alternatively, don't try editing Wikipedia when you're busy with other stuff. In my defense: what you're quoting is in a table headed "Problems that don't require deletion", which is probably why I missed it in my fly-by skimming. It should be under "problems that might require deletion". :-) Thanks to Asbestos and Korath. JRM 13:06, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
    How about "Problems that might not require deletion"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    According to the pages (as Sam mentions, below) the "proper channels" do not appear to have been followed. I think this VfD is spurious, and not called for at this point in time. It's also amusing that the note says "After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it" good thing Sam hasn't been here for a year and hasn't written many articles, huh? Guettarda 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Actually I have, but who cares about the letter and the spirit of the rules when your busy trying to burn someone your holding a grudge against, eh? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • as a note, EB hasn't discussed the matter with me whatsoever, so this couldn't apply as an inappropriate user page VfD. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 14:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the page is Useful, and if people have been using it, it deserves to stay. Besides, it's his own space. He should be able to use it for whatever he wants. I think as long as he doesn't advertise it on other pages, it should be fine--Zeerus 14:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • He does, however, advertise it on other pages [6]. Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - on proceedural grounds. See my comment above. Guettarda 14:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, User sub-pages are a good place to keep this kind of thing. It's where you have some policy or idea that you're still polishing. In fact it's an excellent idea, procedure wise at least. (And Sam Spade, stop cribbing ideas from the WP:AMI page :-P , you are definately capable of better than that! Read the comments here (especially the negative ones) and improve your concept!) Kim Bruning 15:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am disappointed with the tone of the page, and can certainly see the potential for abuse. On the other hand, I would rather see any organizations like this to be out in the open and not hidden in back channels or completely off the Wikipedia. I agree with several of the people who have said that this nomination is (currently) inappropriate for a VfD vote. If it does look like the organization is living up to my worst fears, then it should be handled through WP:RFC and WP:RFAR and not WP:VFD. For the purposes of voting, count this as a very, very weak keep. BlankVerse ∅ 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (1) User pages are generally free to have whatever content you want. I know plenty of people who have frivolous content and even anti-wikipedia sentiment on their User pages. (2) How is this "agency" any different from letting people contact you on your talk page about issues they want your help with. People do that to me all the time. All Sam is doing is creating a separate page for it and adding a little more organization. Perfectly fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Deleting this page will not delete the agency. Sam has been open about his project, and it is being monitored. if this page goes there is no way to monitor what the agency will do, which I think would be a bad thing. If people want to stop his agency here is not the place to do it, and as long as his agency is legitimate then this page should be too. I urge those who want to stop his agency to go through the proper procedure and debate it in the proper forums, then put a Vfd here, --SqueakBox 18:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with someone conducting investigations, many users probably do, at least Sam is being open about it. It is a user sub page and compared to many user subpages that are maintained this one does not merit deletion. Regarding starting any kind of "organization" as far as laws and concepts regarding "freedom of association" are concerned I do not think that "we" could stop such a move by Sam and his friends if we tried. Or let's call it Totalitaripedia, not Wikipedia. — © Alex756 21:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace and make it a public organization. Run it in the same way as other voluntary and unofficial organizations, as was (eventually) done with a group that had rather similar aims and methods. That should keep potential abuse well in check—but would make it redundant with at least two other groups.
    Or: Leave it alone, watch it carefully, and publicize its actions well. Let it stand or fall on its own merits. Perhaps it will acquire a reputation as a stalwart defender of the bullied and downtrodden. Perhaps it will acquire a reputation for bullying and treading down. Perhaps no-one will use it and it will fade into obscurity. Who can say? —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations already exists in the Wikipedia namespace. What would be different about this one? — Asbestos | Talk 00:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. sheer nonsense vfd of a user subpage directly applicable to the project. absolutely no policy justification for the vfd. seems the cabal fears investigation might bring their misbehavior to light:(. Ungtss 14:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep out of User pages unless there is actually a problem. - RoyBoy 800 16:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep So far I don't see Sam Spade doing anything illegal with that page. I also find it disgusting that we are here to defend a USER PAGE. Have a life! -- Toytoy 15:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Sam's user space is his own business, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal or wildly offensive therein. I would, though, encourage Sam to remove the link from his signature, or at least make it shorter. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure on the page, but the actions describe within should be examined and rebuked if they make Wikipedia a less open and community-based system. Tabs should be kept to make sure this group doesn't get out of line or becomes some sort of police force for Wikipedia, but I don't think the userpage is all that significant until that occurs. If this little detective agency moves forward and violates the community, then my vote becomes a vote to delete.

  • Keep Is in user space - sets dangerous precedent to delete a user advocacy group because we may disagree with their POV. Trödel|talk I have read some more and now feel strongly keep - while I disagree with Sam on many things and think that his behavior at times has been confrontational at best, to delete a page in a user's space that is a voluntary effort sets a bad precedent. The group is open in its conduct and all can see what is going on - in our age, witch hunts are equally liable to result in exposing the hunters as the hunted. Do not let your disagreement with Sam drive your decision - if another user like say User:SlimVirgin or User:Tony Sidaway had done this would you still vote the same way - I would. Trödel|talk 18:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An excellent idea that has, like so many other previous ideas, come under the destructive lense of the cabal that enjoys ridding wikipedia of any and all articles that do not fit into their collectively narrow POV. --Da 'Sco Mon 01:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep biatches. SamSpade is a good man FIGHTING against the JEWISH cabal. So a STRONG keep. YEAHHHHHHHHHH. I wanna join this detective agency and help take down you LIBERAL FREAKS but I dont even know if Im cool enough to be accepted by Mr. Spade. - DA CHILD -SmarterChild3 17:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-P.S. I am NOT Sam Spade. -SmarterChild3 17:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comments like this make me rethink my intended principled stand Trödel|talk 18:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If this detective agency is a disguised version of attack Stormfront tried to organize in February, I will change my vote and lobby all the keeps above to do the same Trödel|talk 18:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you havn't heard of black propoganda or the misuse of power words. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just making my position clear: the decision shouldn't be based on ideas we don't like; however, disrupting wikipedia to prove a point is a valid reason to delete the page. Trödel|talk 15:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like we need to write an article on Black Propoganda (hey, wouldn't that be more productive than trying to delete my user pages? Just a thought..). To help you out:
"Propaganda can be classified according to the source. White propaganda comes from an openly identified source. Black propaganda pretends to be from a friendly source, but is actually from an adversary. Gray propaganda pretends to be from a neutral source, but comes from an adversary"
Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though the page arguably goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, until actual harm is demonstrated, users should have leeway regarding their own user pages. Wmahan. 16:59, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Keep until there's a real demonstrable reason to delete it. So far there's no actual harm shown, merely dislike. Wesley 17:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; spurious listing. Fascist restriction of user pages should not be a goal of Wikipedia. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested procedure

  • Checking edit histories, I must conclude that Exploding hasn't contacted Sam about this page, before listing it on VfD. It therefore seems proper to close this VfD, give Exploding the time to contact Sam, and then have Exploding start a new VfD if he deems it necessary. This does sound needlessly bureaucratic, and seems unlikely to actually help. Indeed, this VfD seems likely to end in 'no consensus' either way.
  • Therefore, the best solution seems to be to take the matter to RfC - that applies to both (and separately) the alleged conflicts between Sam and Exploding, and any disputes regarding existence of a detective agency on WP.
  • Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the right thing to do. Alright, I agree, and 'second the motion' to move to RFC. Are there any opposed? Kim Bruning 15:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Let's cut out the needless bureaucracy: Sam, what's the deal with this page? It seems highly inappropriate and I'm concerned also that you're advertising it on other pages as well as embedding it in your user name whenever you sign a post. I have no desire to antagonise you; I would have listed a similar page started by any user, because this type of "organisation" is, in my view, completely anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia and has vast potential for causing problems. Please seeFeloniousMonk's comments for a much better analysis than I've provided here of why such a page and such an organization is totally inappropriate here. Exploding Boy 18:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You can't ban an organisation with a Vfd. If you want to stop Sam's agency find a legitimate way of doing so, --SqueakBox 18:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: User:Radiant! has pointed out to me that VfD can indeed apply to userspace pages. Nonetheless, I will retain my prior vote. If VfD is to be utilized in userspace, it should only be applied in the most egregious cases. I'm not convinced this qualifies. Firebug 20:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the word detective is putting people off, --SqueakBox 00:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

But we're talking Sam Spade. The opportunity is too good to miss. JRM 01:17, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
But we're also talking User:Sam_Spade as well. It's the agency organizer's history of shabby behavior [7], litigiousness [8], and cynical policy manipulations [9] [10], not the agency's name that's the cause of concern for some here. --FeloniousMonk 05:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If your concern is with the organizer, the proper forum is a request for comment, mediation, or arbitration. We may allow deletion of user subpages, but we don't have votes to delete users. --Michael Snow 06:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have never suggested we vote to delete any user. That Sam has avoided RFC, RFM, and RFAr for his insulting behavior is only because I chose to give him a chance to atone on his own without being compelled to. That he's responded the way he has is clearly his choice. All I've advocated here is that an unsanctioned police group operating out of a userspace and hence having total control over what is and isn't allowed to be said and presented is a powerful tool that is a temptation to misuse even by the most ethical of editors, and as such it should not be permitted to exist in a userspace, but if it is, then it should be heavily monitored. And judging by his recent antics in limiting the speech of those being investigated at User_talk:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency, keeping tabs on them is clearly justified, as well as my concern here. FeloniousMonk 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Sam_Spade_Detective_agency_5999.html"