From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Communication 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Systemic malaise 3.1.2 The good of the project 3.1.3 Personal attacks 3.1.4 Good of the project 3.1.5 Punishment 3.1.6 Probation 3.1.7 Template 3.1.8 Template 3.1.9 Template 3.1.10 Template 3.1.11 Template 3.1.12 Template 3.1.13 Template 3.1.14 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Tendentious editing 3.2.2 Focus of dispute 3.2.3 Failure to assume good faith 3.2.4 Edit warring by Sam Spade 3.2.5 Sam Spade has promised to reform his behavior 3.2.6 Ignoring consensus 3.2.7 Misleading edit summaries 3.2.8 Devils' Advocate 3.2.9 Template 3.2.10 Template 3.2.11 Template 3.2.12 Template 3.2.13 Template 3.2.14 Template 3.2.15 Template 3.2.16 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Revert parole for Sam Spade 3.3.2 Sam Spade placed on probation 3.3.3 Skrew you guys, I'm going home 3.3.4 Template 3.3.5 Template 3.3.6 Template 3.3.7 Template 3.3.8 Template 3.3.9 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 3.4.2 Template 3.4.3 Template 3.4.4 Template 3.4.5 Template 3.5 Analysis of evidence 3.5.1 Template 3.5.2 Template 3.5.3 Template 3.5.4 Template 3.5.5 Template 3.5.6 Template 3.5.7 Template 3.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Communication

1) Where is the appropriate venue for discussing this case? Clearly not wiki-en. If any sort of beneficial outcome is to be produced from any of this, an appropriate venue for discussion would need to be arranged. In my assessment the rush towards arbitration (to which the RfC was clearly only ment to be a stepping stone) violated my good faith efforts to discuss the matters in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am attempting dialogue here. Sam Spade 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade is as good a place as any. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Systemic malaise

1) The Wikipedia has systemic errors in its social structure which result in discord and strife. Rather than banning or punishing those contributors who find themselves in conflict with a popular member or group of members, other solutions must be found. Popularity contest "justice" is not inclined towards the production of an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What you say is true, but tendentious editing and edit warring is the issue here. Fred Bauder 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Huh? Isn't "consensus" agreement? Isn't "verification" when multiple sources agree with a statement? When a Holocaust denier says there was no Holocaust and the general community says there was, you decide this on the basis of multiple sources, mainstream vs. fringe, etc. This statement is absurd on its face and fails common sense. It is against the very heart of scientific and historical research. Curious. Solo truth is for prophets. Geogre 15:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The good of the project

2) Whatever can be done for the good of the project ought to be our goal. The personalities of the case are only a distraction. If, for example, I am deemed to be inherently disruptive, or if I determine that this is an unpleasent and abusive environment, the answer is for me to be deleted, along with my user history. If, on the other hand, we can find a solution to our mutual satisfaction which benefits the project more than my dismissal, let us pursue such an option. I will admit you are on very thin ice from my perspective, and that I have now transitioned from an advocate of the wikipedia to friends, family and academia, to an embittered critic. It is my opinion that I have never recieved the benefit of good faith from many wikipedians, but I am willing to move on, so long as progress is made. If we fail to find progress forthcoming, let us part ways.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You need not respond to our remedies in a childish way. Fred Bauder 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't know what you mean, but I can tell you intend to be insulting. That is sad, on both accounts. Sam Spade 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems like a deathbed conversion, as what is at stake is, indeed, Sam's habit of disagreeing with a person and immediately launching into a personal attack to make the person disagreeable to him. If we weren't substantially in agreement with the principle that personalities are not the focus of an encyclopedia, I doubt any of us would be documenting how thoroughly Sam makes personalities the centerpoints of his edits and disputes, how he injects his personality and personal visions of the truth to such a degree that people flee the miasma. Geogre 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

3) No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good of the project

4) Editors are encouraged to have an open mind about other people's thoughts, and be ready to accept it when consensus is against them. They are encouraged to try to understand criticisms of their behaviour rather than immediately denoucing them as wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A restatement of assume good faith Fred Bauder 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'd like to see some evidence that I have been other than open minded. Sam Spade

Sam, you don't even have an open mind about you not having an open mind. How many people have to tell you that you often exhibit a closed mind before you realize you are capable at times of deluding yourself about having an open mind? WAS 4.250 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was either way, I just asked for some evidence. If you ask me I'm far too open minded and compromising. Sam Spade 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole process is evidence. What part of "delusional" don't you get? You say you have a background in human psychology. Surely you understand narcissism as a concept? WAS 4.250 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"If you ask me I'm far too open minded and compromising." - This comment is a little frightening. -Silence 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment

5) Blocks and bans are not to be used as punishments

Comment by Arbitrators:

We openly refer to bans and blocks as "clue sticks", so obviously use these mechanisms as punishment for undesirable behavior. Fred Bauder 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If true, that is a particularly ugly aspect of the wikipedia of which I was previously unaware. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Wikipedia:Blocking policy however, and besides, its you who appears to need the clue stick. Sam Spade 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Blocking or banning used as punishment is inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:Blocking policy says "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia." it is also true that blocks and bans may be perceived as either punishing or rewarding someone and thus in an open and honest discussion they naturally can be talked about and voted on with all the effects of the block or ban fully acknowleged rather than playing pretend games. Sometimes the best way to avoid big damage is punishing small damage, wherein the intent is avoiding damage but the means chosen to that end is punishment. The idea is not to find a justification for sticking it to someone. The idea is that at all times the question of "What is this ban/block for?" can be answered "For the good of wikipedia" and not "He had it coming to him." WAS 4.250 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is all too easy to rationalize the desire to punish by saying it is for a higher purpose. Paul August ☎ 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. True. No doubt. OK, then what? More specifically; therefore what? Punishment is a slippery slope therefore any attempt at mitigating damage that is perceived as punishment is disallowed because it is perceived thus? Obviously not. So therefore what? WAS 4.250 04:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore this topic is inappropriate and melodramatic. Responses to Sam's actions will not be punishments. They might be injunctions -- preventions of foreseen harms in the future -- and might be limitations, but this topic, introduced by Sam, is not apt, and no one wants to fill it out. Geogre 11:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

6) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by tendentious editing and edit warring may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My addition, which our proposed findings of fact and remedies will rely on. Fred Bauder 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Tendentious editing

1) Sam Spade has edited tendentiously and disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Focus of dispute

2) Sam_Spade (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has habitually edited controversial articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Evidence#Third_assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I note you don't dispute the statement, Sam, just the level of flattery. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That doesn't seem like a very flattering way to describe my attempts to NPOV difficult articles. Sam Spade 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is based on my assertion... Sam Spade 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Failure to assume good faith

3) Sam Spade does not accept the efforts of other users as being directed toward fulfillment of the goals of Wikipedia [1].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Whose good faith do I fail to accept? I clearly accept the good faith of some. Sam Spade 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Edit warring by Sam Spade

4) Sam Spade has engaged in sustained edit warring at a number of articles, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Evidence#Sam_Spade_edit_wars_at_God, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Evidence#Sam_Spade_edit_wars_at_Human, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Evidence#Sam_Spade_edit_wars_at_Socialism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is misleading, I stopped edit warring before this ArbCom case was even filed. Sam Spade 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It takes two (or more) to edit war. In the "God" edit war, KillerChihuahua and JoshuaZ both warred. Any actions against Sam for edit warring should apply to these two as well. Justforasecond 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. If the talk page has established a consensus and one person keeps changing to defy that consensus, then only that person is "edit warring": the others are reverting. As for whether all sides are equally guilty, the ArbCom members will look at the edits and make up their own minds. However, reversion of vandalism, for example, is not part of 3RR and not part of edit warring, and returning an article to the position with 90% approval by all editors on the article isn't, either. Geogre 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade has promised to reform his behavior

5) Following a Request for comment regarding his behavior, Sam Spade has undertaken to reform his behavior Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Evidence#Second_assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

AFAIR, he has undertaken to reform before. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is misleading, I have adjusted my interaction with the project based on discussion in my RfC. Sam Spade 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Several times. Unless there is a specific and longterm injunction against shooting out a cloud of ink, the octopus will continue to do it whenever he feels threatened or annoyed. It isn't a temporary or one-off or one-article problem, so there can't be a temporary or one-off or single-article solution, IMO. Geogre 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a particularly disgusting and insulting analogy, please do not engage in personal attacks such as this in the future. Sam Spade 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I regarded it as an apt description of actions, not persons, and I apologize for any personal application. Geogre 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam, this is an insulting analogy because you are not blindly driven to specific behaviors as say an octopus is driven to produce a cloud of ink; but instead you are an intelligent human capable of choosing which behavior you will and will not select. Thus you are capable of selecting behavior that is appropriate. And you claim that in fact you have selected behavior that is appropriate and will follow it without further action by arbcom. So arbcom's decision in this matter is not necessary. So all arbcom has to do is nothing and all is hunky-dory, wonderful fine, problem solved. Right? What is your recommendation for what arbcom should decide to do if in fact your behavior reverts to what arbcom considers to be unacceptable? WAS 4.250 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring consensus

6) Sam Spade has ignored consensus which goes against his own views of article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Appeals to "consensus" are always bogus, Wikipedia is never legitimately a reflection of consensus reality. Fred Bauder 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I feel the true issue is that Sam is unwilling to compromise - even when everyone else in a discussion disagrees with him - and that he does not try to win his case through rational argument, but by stubborn persistence in reverting to his preferred version and by trying to twist the argument away from the issues and towards personalities. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the focus needs to be on published authority for the information he is advancing. Fred Bauder 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Like for example the references I was attempting to insert into God : [2]. Sam Spade 10:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The fact that we don't achieve perfection is no argument against the goals we strive toward. The perfect must never be enemy of the good. That "consensus" is ill-defined and never truly achieved is not any legitimation of people who edit by revelation or private understandings of history or reality, much less that they should be allowed to ever drive off communities of editors. While I'm as sick as anyone of "consensus consensus consensus," I am so only because the distinction Wikipedia enjoys is community and open editing. That's why it's not a peer reviewed publication and why it's not Everything2 or Myspace. Wikipedia only works if people don't get to own the truth. When Sam tells every other editor of an article that he's right and they're all wrong, it's no semantic game to bring up consensus. Geogre 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

While "Sam Spade has ignored consensus which goes against his own views of article content" is true; it should also be noted that Sam usually brings sources to the table. And just as sometimes Sam talks about who is talking rather than evaluating relative merits of positions and sources, so too his debating partners often note that oh look it's just Sam doing his thing again sometimes ignoring the evidence Sam brings to the table and sometimes discounting it (eg undue weight) for subjective reasons they are unwilling to thoroughly examine - perhaps feeling it is pointless because it is Sam - leading to accusations on both sides. A key dynamic is people who are in the majority giving up any real discussion with those who are perceived to be pointlessly disputive (which makes sense). WAS 4.250 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute WAS's assessment because I don't have as much experience with Sam as he, but in my experience, most of Sam's evidence has been rather dubious, and when it's been critiqued and found lacking, he's ignored the relevant arguments and again reverted to personal attacks, interspersed with interjections of "I gave evidence" without responding to the holes that have been pointed out in the evidence. That's what I've seen, at least: he uses evidence, at least in debates, more as a rhetorical tool to add weight to his views than as a tool to neutrally improve the article. This often includes non sequiturs in the evidence and the issue being discussed, such as using evidence of the evolution/creationism social controversy to argue that beginning the article with statements like "humans are homo sapiens" is POVed, and his providing a poll that most people in the U.S. believe in God to argue that most people in the world believe in God. -Silence 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict w/ Silence) Re: Sam Spade's "Like for example the references I was attempting to insert into God : [3]". Good example. The references don't support the edit. ("God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority[1][2][3] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence.") The first two [4] [5] only discuss American beliefs, and the third [6] discusses a poll across just ten countries (notably not including China) whose strongest statement is "In most of the countries covered, well over 80% said they believed in God or a higher power." Why did Sam edit-war this point in God, while providing sources that didn't back up his edit? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find WAS's comment extremely insightful in regards to majoritarian dynamics on Wikipedia. Sam's arguments, which, in addition to representing his views, sometimes represent the views of a significant minority, are often rejected because Sam's tactics put his views in a negative light. Sam's particular tactics result in minority views being dismissed rather than pushing the majority to consider making room for them in articles. Sam could be extremely valuable to the project if he were to realize that his tactics are actually counterproductive to his own cause. — goethean ॐ 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats why I changed my tactics. Notice I'm not reverting anything as of late? Sam Spade 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a response to Silence and Bunch of Grapes.

• God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence is the statement Sam wished to lead off the article.
• His source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3490490.stm shows a graphic that says that of 10000 people polled in US, the UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon (polling takes representative samples; apparently their pollsters thought this was representative) over 70% said said they believed in God, prayed regularly and would die for their belief
• His source http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=757 shows close to the same figure for the US that the BBC poll had for the US; supporting the BBC poll.
• At Talk:God Sam says:

  I have restored a cited intro. While it is clearly open to improvement, it is important that it not be replaced with what I found: uncited bias. God is not "a" deity, he is the absolute infinite. This article is not about Zeus, or gods, but about the singular monotheist, pantheist, or panentheist entity. It is important that we not lose sight of that. See Deity#Singular_God. Sam Spade 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Silence says the following which seems unrelated to Sam's actual beliefs, additions, or evidence:

  his providing a poll that most people in the U.S. believe in God to argue that most people in the world believe in God.

• Grapes claims The references don't support the edit. without explaining why his understanding of how to poll for the world's opinion on God is better than the BBC's as presented on an article that is part of their What The World Thinks of God series. WAS 4.250 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a ten-nation poll; no claims were made that the nations were chosen in such a way as to represent world beliefs other than the marketing title "What The World Thinks Of God"; and common sense would indicate that leaving out China skews a religious poll of this nature enormously. I can't find where it says over 70% "said they believed in God, prayed regularly and would die for their belief". I see "In Lebanon and the US, 71% said they were willing to die for their God or their beliefs." The detailed chart [7] here explicitly includes those who say "I do not believe in God but I do believe in a higher power" and it is quite hard to tell what percentage that makes up in the various statistics -- I would imagine that percentage would be quite high in a nation like India. Of course, that's me guessing -- the BBC didn't publish (not there at least) enough information to actually say much of anything based on that article. Which may be my point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    It's also possible that the BBC's title wasn't accurate. After all, the BBC is in competition and in a marketplace, and it would hardly be the first time that they used a sexy title for a series to try to nab listeners. Further, even if that was the goal of the series, the particular quotation (the actual evidence we're supposed to consider) doesn't support either the series title's promise nor, most importantly, Sam's allegation. It's possible for us to say that the "higher power" is God a priori, but that's a judgment we would be imposing on people. They think there is a distinction, and since we're trying to say what they "believe," we should be accurate: they believe that they do not believe that God is the supreme being, even if we would parse their statements to say they do: we're not the judge. We're the reporters. Geogre 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    • The article God says:

The God of monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category, the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself, the ground of being, the monistic substrate, etc.

• • • Who doesn't believe in God if by "God" we include "existence" itself? WAS 4.250 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Nihilists. Sam Spade 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Doesn't seem a fair question -- People polled as to whether thay believe in "God or a higher power" are unlikely to interpret "God" to mean "existence" itself. For example: plenty of self-described atheists are do believe in an objective reality, but would still report themselves as not believing in God (or a higher power) if asked in such a poll. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summaries

1) Sam Spade uses deliberately misleading edit summaries to disguise his reverts and changes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My addition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Can you provide some examples? Sam Spade 16:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on that. Part of it, I think, is including a revert to your preferred text among other edits, and not mentioning that part of the edit, e.g. many reverts on God to your preferred intro wording are not labelled as reverts. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't always use the word revert, but I make it clear what I am doing. Sam Spade 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Devils' Advocate

1) Sam Space states that he approaches the project as a Devils' Advocate. [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I thought this was interesting. Is a devils'-advocate position comptible with harmonious editing of a neutral encyclopedia? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer is: When it denotes writing for the enemy to improve NPOV, yes. When it denotes disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, no. -Silence 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Admits" makes this sound like a bad thing. Sam's ability and practice of seeing things from different points of view than the majority point of view is an asset to Wikipedia and can be illuminating. It is his inability to accept that maybe he is wrong that is the problem; not using a devil's advocate approach nor having unpopular points of view. Devil's Advocate says "This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure." If the devil's advocate shuts up at the right time then a useful anaysis has beeen facilitated. If the arguing does not end when its usefulness ends then that is another matter altogether. It is not the playing devil's advocate that is the problem; it is not shutting up when nothing more useful is served by continuing. WAS 4.250 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I reworded to eliminate the accusatory "admits". I'm still not sure it's a good role to take; I think there's a clear distinction between writing for the enemy and playing Devil's advocate, but I admit I can't put my finger on it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The devil's advocate is a test for saints, not for God or Humans, and the position only works because there's a Pope who can tell him that his case wasn't proven. Sam is the devil's advocate and the judge, and always self-appointed. That's no way to function. Geogre 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Revert parole for Sam Spade

1) Sam Spade is placed on revert parole. He is limited one revert per week on any page, excepting obvious vandalism. Furthermore, he is required to discuss his reverts on relevant talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too restrictive Fred Bauder 17:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

For what time frame? Sam Spade 16:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about one revert per day? -- infinity0 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One per day sounds good to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade placed on probation

2) Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on probation. He may be banned by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Justified by edits to God alone, and there is plenty more. Charles Matthews 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would prefer to have my account deleted, and would certainly not edit under such a circumstance. Sam Spade 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Another angle on Geogre's comment below about "Probation" sounding insulting: when I look at Sam's input on the workshop talkpage, I get the impression that the red flag here is "administrator" rather than "probation". ("He may be banned by any administrator.") On the talkpage Sam expresses very sweeping contempt of administrators--of all of them, by his glossing of Wikipedia:Admins, but I presume that is rhetorical, especially as he recently tried to join them[9] --and writes under his headings Wikipedia Cons that "Popularity contest winners (Wikipedia:Admins) ignore all rules, dispensing with threats, indefinite blocks, and wheel waring as the mood suits them."[10] Wouldn't it be quite surprising to see Sam accept any remedy that involved an administrator using his/her jugdgment over an action of his? That's something of a difference between him and Geogre. Me, I find it essential that there should be some remedy, no matter the specificity of it, that does involve administrator judgment. I'm very honestly sorry if this is felt to be humiliating, and I can understand that it would be, but well, who else's judgment is the community going to use? Admins are trusted users. Enforcing ArbCom rulings is in their job description. If I'm right about these two propositions--that there must be admin judgment, and that holding admin judgment over him is intolerable to Sam-- then perhaps an irresistible force has already met an immoveable object, and there's no point in prolonging the agony. If it's a foregone conclusion that he will walk away, there's nothing left to discuss. Thoughts? Is it, Sam? Bishonen | talk 13:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Correct, this entire trial is a fools errand, as you cannot force me to contribute, and resticting contributions I won't be making in the first place is ridiculous. I have said it several times in several places, but I will say it here again: I will not contribute using an account which has been limited. I probably won't contribute at all, but if the mood strikes me I'll do it anonymously, or via another account. Your proposed restrictions are dust in the wind. I use this account as a courtesy to you, so that you can discuss my editing in a centralized location. If you hadn't been so beligerant and unwilling to pursue my RfC (or even to discuss on your own talk page), you could have simply asked me not to revert so much, or whatever, and I almost certainly would have complied. You are cutting your own neck with all this legalistic foolishness. I am not your dog to be kicked, you have no power over me. What you do have (for the immediate future) is an opportunity to request, politely, that I make changes. Any sensible person would have started with that first, instead of the games you have been playing. Sam Spade 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

(apologies if this is inapropriate, (I'm a newbie) but the SS comment regarding his inability to work under probation raises several red flags for me. I believe arbitrators should take the statement into consideration, but not as a threat to be rewarded.) 68.8.12.35 05:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I had thought about commenting on the hubris involved as well, as it implies that we'll all be sorry enough by Sam's loss that we won't deliberate this option. That's not good. Also, why would probation be any more difficult to observe than his current good behavior and silence? In effect, he's behaving as if on probation right now. I understand that probation sounds insulting, and we all have our pride (and I'd probably walk away if put on probation, too, if I felt myself to be in the absolute right), but previous RfC's were trying to make clear that an absolute right is no way to edit. The Truth is non-negotiable, but Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth. If it were, we wouldn't have the NOR prohibition. Geogre 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the threat in drawing the line which you cannot cross without losing me as a volunteer? Please try to excersize a bit of common sense. Put on a sensible paradigm. If this were an in person volunteer project, and you were upset with my behavior, you'd take me aside and ask me to make changes, yes? That would have been fine. Instead you have dragged me through the mud, putting together a motley mob of critics from every disagreement I have ever had, and placing me before this pretend trial. I have commited no crime (what policy did I violate?), I have refused no advice (read the RfC talk page), and I will not tolerate punishments (I'd rather just leave, thank you very much). Sam Spade 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The threat is in the passive-aggressive "you'll be sorry," but whether you intended that or not, consciously or not, isn't very important. What is important is that you realize that folks did try to pursue dialog. That's why this RfAr is taking place: people did take you aside, on talk pages from here to there, and affected absolutely no change in your behavior. You believed yourself to be in possession of a truth that could not be mediated, could not be negotiated, could not be restrained, that had to be put in in the terms that you alone had determined, and you were willing to go around endlessly with reverts over the matter. Most of those people debating with you were new users or occasional users, and most of them got run off the articles in question. No one enjoys this process. I'm about as conflict-averse an admin as you'll find, and no one wants to humiliate anyone, and therefore I dare say no one would be a signatory of this if she or he believed that there was any other way. Saying that a conversation aside would work isn't backed up by the history. What is shown by history is that you tend to get into ad hominem debating tactics, both ways (toward yourself as well as your opponent). Even this exchange is a change of topic from "what can be done" to "my personality and whether I'm valuable." No group of fellow users can answer questions about your person, personality, or value, just about your actions. Geogre 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you be sorry if I left? I assume you'd be happy, wouldn't you? I'm not sure how you managed to get so mixed up inside, but you don't seem to be addressing the issues. Did you ever personally discuss your concerns about my editing with me? Then why the hell are you here, yammering on like you did?

I don't recall any of the main players here having discussed much of anything with me prior to this arbcom case. Silence and 4.250 did, but they aren’t complaintents, and besides, I was agreeing with them about solutions when this whole mess was brought here. Sam Spade 15:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone please ignore Sam's posturing and pouting, and just get on with the case. Make whatever decisions seem appropriate, and then let Sam deal with the consequences (should there be any). Sam's statements about what he will or won't do should this or that come to pass can't have any bearing on the outcome. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary. The behavior of the people involved can be illuminating. WAS 4.250 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wile E. As for the rest, indeed behavior can be illuminating, but professions and misdirections? Not so much in this case. Geogre 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skrew you guys, I'm going home

1) Sam Spade makes clear that he has no more patience for this foolishness, and departs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We must apologize to the community for our lengthy delay. Fred Bauder 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Fred, do you mean you (plural) apologize in advance for the present lengthy delay? Bishonen | talk 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

No, for not dealing with this years ago. Fred Bauder 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: