Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was a talk page from an Rfc that died on the vine in June here - when the Rfc was deleted, the talk page was left. I have deleted the talk page as not relevent to this Rfc. As usual, please reverse my action should you feel I erred. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Outside view of Justforasecond 2 Abusing Sam? 3 You guys upset me 4 you assume, the minority (you), is NPOV 5 I've done it too 6 arbitration 7 172's deleted comment 8 Silence says we're making progress 8.1 How is an "arbcom like agreement" better than an arbcom agreement? 9 Let's be clear 10 Sam Spade gives it a try 11 Sam's edit 11.1 Formal vs. informal 11.2 Agree with Silence, this is getting silly; somebody start the RfAR, please? 12 Meercat's outside view 12.1 Merecat replies 12.2 Whether negative reactions to Sam's personal opinions have unduly influenced the RfC, and other issues Re:Merecat 13 thewolfstar's outside view

[edit] Outside view of Justforasecond

• I'm not participating in this RfC, but I find your comments puzzling. I am familiar with a couple of the editors who have certified this request, and I have found them to be thoughtful, dedicated and helpful contributors to Wikipedia. It bothers me tht you are throwing around these accusations against unnamed editors. If you have a problem with their behavior, discuss it with them first. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Implying that the people who have brought this RfC to light is behaving "unethically" is an unsupportable comment. Similarly, implying we are acting in a conspiracy is also an unsupportable comment. You choose to ignore all the evidence we have presented as indication of Sam's behaviour, yet you don't hesistate to attack us without any evidence to support it. -- infinity0 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• You say "users who have behaved unethically here" and "always congratulated each other on new cats". Before you continue researching this issue in depth, can you show us some examples that you consider are out of the norm? I can say with little doubt that infinity0 and I have never edited together in the past. Your comments are as bad as Sam's comments above with respect to "dirt digging". David D. (Talk) 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want to do that. Pilers on are not provably violating wiki policies so naming them will at probably just antagonize them, and, at worse, make me the target of future efforts. Infinity0 says these claims "unsupportable", I do not know this user but he/she hits the nail on the head -- even when there is an effort to pile on there is seldom evidence as users communicate through email/IM or IRC. Unfortunately it becomes an arms race, when one side of a dispute piles on multiple irrelevant editors what can the other side do? And I think everyone here has witnessed it -- it becomes especially apparent once RfCs and RfArs begin. I would hope that the behavior would just end. Justforasecond 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

An RfC does not have to be a negative experience. In fact, Infinity0 has been working hard to make this constructive and not a pile on. For example, see Infinity0's message on my talk page here that asked me not to pile on and led to my edit here to reduce my examples. While i agree with your arms race analogy, I do wonder why you would start, and continue to finger point (even if in a general way) if you have that attitude. I for one have not been in contact with any of these users by IM or IRC. Possibly you should consider that this is a genuine attempt to mend bridges brought on by a communal frustration with Sam's edits. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• You stated "The issue of whether "God" is an appropriate term in English for a supreme being..." This makes no sense. No one involved in this Rfc, or the God article, has ever debated that point so far as I know, and that includes Sam. Please clarify - what are you talking about? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this nonsensical statement that completely misunderstands the point of one of the disputes is explained clearly by the beginning of Justforasecond's statement: "I have not looked into this case in great detail". This explains both how such a drastic misinterpretation of one of the issues could have occurred, and how justforasecond could have leaped to the conclusion that anyone involved in this is practicing "pile-on" voting or behaving "unethically", which there is absolutely no evidence for. Indeed, the three main points of Justforasecond's post, all complete tangents, seem to have been (1) to defend Sam Spade in general (while failing to provide any arguments to back anything up), (2) to malign several users who Justforasecond has judged to have done bad things in the past in various unexplained and vague situations in the past, and (3) to rant about the problem of "pile-on" voting without any indication that this is occurring here (and several strong indications that it's not, like the fact that completely different users are supporting different sections of the RfC, indicating that they are thoughtfully considering each before voting, and that many users are providing specific explanations along with their support). That's just my guess, though; I, too, would welcome a clearer explanation of Justforasecond's statement, as it's hard to support or oppose someone's argument without understanding its relevance or point. -Silence 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusing Sam?

quotes from the Bishonen's talk page. Source "I don't see that as an excuse for the sort of abuse you have signed onto. It can be a good website or a bad one, a respected encyclopedia or a social experiement gone wrong. I'd like you to think about your role in where this project is going". Sam Spade 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd like to know why you think my comments in this RfC are abusive? Does this mean you are ignoring the suggestions and points being discussed? David D. (Talk) 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"I want the wikipedia to be the kind of place where I want my child to look up words and facts without fear of misinformation or bullying."

This sentence is especially ironic, since it is Sam's misinformation and bullying (regarding accusations of other editors' POV) we are commenting on. -- infinity0 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You guys upset me

This page has become a literal who's who of wikipedians who upset me. What the heck am I supposed to do when you POV an article? Run and hide? Call in back up? Give up and go home? Frankly I'm at a loss. Sam Spade 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Among other issues, it might occur to you that 1) when the vast majority of editors say that your version is POV and that their's is closer to NPOV, it might be because it actually is. 2) if we "upset" you that might indicate that you need to calmd down and keep in mind that disagreeing with you about how to phrase an article or what content it should have does not reflect negatively on you. JoshuaZ 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the contrary was claimed in lots of edit summaries, there was never any consensus at Human. — goethean ॐ 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

6 to 2 constitutes consensus. FeloniousMonk 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Human. The tally was something like 9-5. [1] — goethean ॐ 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as KC points out, it was a good bit greater than that. One would think that defending the misrepresentation of facts by misreprenting facts would be a bad idea. •Jim62sch• 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The tally was (and is) two editors for version 1, nine editors for version 2, and one editor for version 4. Sam's was version 4. You supported version 1, along with schwael. The other 9 editors supported version 2. Version 3 had been dropped from consideration. See Talk:Human#Three_potential_intro_options KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

...with two editors not voting. — goethean ॐ 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction: it is currently 10 for version 2. As far as I can tell, the other several thousand registered editors on Wikipedia, and the other 499 editors who have edited this article[2] have not voted. I did not count anon editors for the purpose of arriving at the 499 figure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus, however, at Socialism. Sam, the main point is that you shouldn't think you're right all the time. If the majority is against your edit, then more likely than not they are in the right. You say others POV the article, but what about you yourself? -- infinity0 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority is usually wrong. Sam Spade 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty ironical comment coming from an editor who insisted that his version of spirit be included in the human article by posting poll results showing how many people (big majority) believed in a spirit. •Jim62sch• 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's called consensus, something you're accused of ignoring. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Majority =/= concensus. Consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Sam Spade 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't justify you assuming you, the minority, is NPOV. -- infinity0 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, don't you get it? Only Sam is NPOV here, and the rest of us are "POV artists."[3] Like he says there "God help the wikipedia," and in his mind he's doing just that, God's work. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, that attitude isn't constructive. What makes you right and them wrong? I am under the impression (and have experienced for myself once) that you just stop discussion things after a while but continue reverting. -- infinity0 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not stop discussion. You obscured the substantive discussion we were having by reformatting the talk page. I repeatedly referred you to previous statements you had not addressed. Sam Spade 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The other editors didn't seem to have trouble re-finding the discussion. I had in fact addressed all the statements - if you don't believe me, see Talk:Socialism right now and find me some examples where I haven't. -- infinity0 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, can you maybe at least admit the possibility that you might not be completely correct? JoshuaZ 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The victim pose. "POV an article"? It's your concept of what constitutes POV that's landed you here. You can start by not assuming that anything you write is NPOV while everything by those whose viewpoint you do not share is POV. That would be a good start. FeloniousMonk 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you assume, the minority (you), is NPOV

Sam one of the issues in this RfC is the title of this section. The other issue is that you walk away from conversations leaving them hanging and never really address the legitimate questions. For example, you ignored my question above as to why you consider my reply in the RfC as abuse. This habit of yours was described by Bishonen in the following words: "But in the interaction I've had he has always moved briskly away from the matter at hand and on to the bad motives and secret agendas of anybody who tries to argue with him." Source

With respect to your mantra "Majority =/= concensus. Consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"." That's fine but the question you do not address is the title of this section, as asked by Infinity0 above, but i did not see you address the question. I asked a similar question on the human talk page and you similarly did not address the question there. Below is what you walked away from on the human talk page.

selective quotes from the human talk page. Source Talk:Human#No_to_editwarring I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable. Sam Spade 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Above Sam said to KillerChihuahua: "What you don't seem to understand is that in this case, the fringe group is you. Step outside the box, and try looking at things from the majority paradigm. ....... I get the impression your not a terribly philosophical guy, are you? " Sam Spade 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Yet above he says "I have learned that the majority is usually wrong.". Sam, I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what an earth are you talking about? You seem to be arguing against yourself? Not to mention that in the archives you were arguing for a pro-biological stance. What I find even more ironic is that you also stated above: "I for one am not here for drama." Sam Spade 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Given all this are you trolling us here or serious? This is real question and I really am wondering because you seem to play devils advocate whatever the topic or opinion. David D. (Talk) 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Insisting on neutrality and policy adherence is not trolling. I've told you guys over and over this has nothing to do w my personal POV. Personally, spiritual evolution is a law of nature. That is however irrelevant when a spiritual POV dominates the article (as it did in the past), or a skeptic POV dominates (as it does today). Both are against the articles best interest, and thus I oppose them. As far as my seemingly contradictory statements regarding the majority, you are missing the subtleties. According to NPOV, minority views among the public (like secular humanism) should not be over emphasized. Again, according to policy; majority views among editors have no special status. My "the majority is usually wrong" was ment to apply to editors, but can apply to the general public as well. The truth is, wikipedia articles are not about absolute truth. They are about cataloging human knowledge in a neutral, verifiable manner. If that knowledge is wrong (and alot of it is), so be it. Sam Spade 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC) You seem to be justifying your current edits by saying that the majority is often wrong. Isn't this counter to the wikipedia philosophy of consensus building? For example, the precedent for spirit as a subsection of culture seems to be set in wikipedia (see silence below). You challenge this but why is your challenge the NPOV way to do it? You seem think that all your calls are objective while everyone elses are subjective. How can this be? And why is consensus not considered in this case? Your job as an editor is not to tell the majority that they are wrong but to persuade that majority that you are right. This is what consensus building is all about. It's hard work and you are not doing the leg work. Without the leg work the article will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to reach a consensus if one party in the discussion consistently walks away from the hard questions. I reiterate what i wrote above. Your job as an editor is not to tell the majority that they are wrong but to persuade that majority that you are right. This is what consensus building is all about. It's hard work and you are not doing the leg work. Without the leg work the articles you edit will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If one can't argue why one is right, then their claim that they are right amounts to nothing. -- infinity0 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a by-passer, but i found this quote a few weeks ago. Sounds relevant:

"MPOV is characterized not by a belief that your own personal viewpoints are correct and thus must be represented in Wikipedia — although those who hold a MPOV very often also believe this — but rather by the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral." m:MPOV (categories:Community | Patterns | Humor)

That's all. --Quiddity 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've done it too

As a rule I avoid the unfortunate, but time-honored, tradition of edit warring. Some might say I have edited too little. But I need to point out that I have also reverted with only an edit summary [4] at Human. And I agree with Sam regarding NPOV. At the WP:LDS project, where I, an LDS member, am in the editor majority, I feel strongly that when an editor critical or non-apologetic of LDS or Mormon POV shows up, he deserves the red carpet treatment from the majority editors. While his views are minority editor views, he surely represents significant global POVs on Mormonism. And I (we) treat him as such. Without his galling presence, we LDS editors would continue indefinitely in our self-satisfied presentation of our "neutral" version of things rather than approaching ever more closely a non-biased (NPOV) presentation. It's tiring. It's frustrating. And we accept it. Tom Haws 20:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you may have made one revert but more often you have discussed issues on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. No one on this talk page has objected to the fact that Sam Spade has unusual views on a number of issues; everyone does. What we object to is what gets in the way of our using his valuable alternative perspectives on issues to address possible POV issues in articles: his unwillingness to listen to criticism or alternate perspectives, his constant personal attacks and insinuations against anyone who doesn't bend to his will on any issue, and his unapologetic and disruptive revert-wars during otherwise-productive Talk page discussions. The problem isn't his opinions, it's his behavior. -Silence 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree. I needed to disclose what I did. Sam is very valuable to me as a person, but I do not excuse his bad behavior any more than I would my own. I hope that the community will be generous to him, and I hope that he will validate the favor. Tom Haws 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, an RfC can be viewed as positive as well as negative. See what i wrote in the first section above. I don't think anyone is trying to ban Sam. David D. (Talk) 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. This is an RfC, not an ArbCom vote. The purpose of this is to discuss, compare notes, and learn: both for Sam to learn what other users have to think about him and to adjust his behavior accordingly, and for the other users to learn more about Sam's rationales and thought process so fewer misunderstandings and conflicts will occur in the future. This is not a witchhunt or a "pile-on" contest; the fact that so many users have voted on this page means that a lot of users agree that there is an issue, not that a lot of users think we should string Sam up and eat his liver. Anyone can make mistakes, and everyone does; the purpose of this RfC is not to play the blame game or to vilify anyone, but to acknowledge and learn from past mistakes so that they can be minimized in the future. The first step, then, was to establish clearly that errors in judgment have been made; this has been demonstrated by the evidence provided on the page, and that there is a genuine issue here has been established by the surprisingly large number of very reasonable and productive users supporting the RfC and various clauses of it. The next step, then, is to discuss, calmly and civilly, how both Sam and those he has had consistent edit wars with in the past can better work together in the future, so that more productive editing and less squabbling can occur. -Silence 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, Tony Sidaway opened an Rfc on himself not too long ago, because he wanted comments and other views on his actions. He sought input from the community. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, that kind of sounds like fun. Maybe someday I'll try RfCing myself. Hmmmm. :o -Silence 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that Sam doesn't want to hear the input from the community. For his attempts to shoo me off this RFC and scold me out of my Outside view, please see this exchange on my talkpage (the link is to where I remove the whole of it, so look to the left as you scroll down and you will see the entire conversation) and this WP:ANI thread, which may however be archived soon. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC).

I just read the discussion thread linked above. Bishonen is clearly being harassed. She shouldn't have to tolerate that. If the harassment continues it should be reported to WP:ANI. 172 | Talk 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It has already been reported; see the link about 3 lines above. Cyde blocked SS for a day but was unblocked because the harassment wasn't rude enough. :rollseyes: -- infinity0 14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

Since the patterns of conduct being described in this RfC are not a week old, but nearly three years old, I recommend arbitration. Arbitration is especially fitting considering Sam Spade's penchant for wearing down his opponents through vexing litigation (a habit he calls the "User:Sam Spade/Detective agency"). As a past target of one of Sam Spade's inquisitions, I'm certain that nothing is going to change until the arbcom formally tells him to give up the self-righteous pretenses and stop personalizing his disputes. 172 | Talk 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be away until 21st April. If any action is taken before then, here is the evidence I have indicated I will provide for his behaviour on Socialism. -- infinity0 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence appears well aggregated. So I assume that if the RfC goes to arbitration, the socialism editors are just going to stick with the disputes from the past couple of weeks, right? That may be sufficient, though the socialism edits are hardly the worst behavior from the past few years. When going to the arbcom, it might help to note that the plaintiffs are intentionally limiting the case to recent matters. I did the same with Silverback, noting in his RfC: User:Silverback is a longtime Wikipedia editor, having made his first edit on 07:04, 30 September 2004. [1]Thus, this RfC can make no pretense to being a complete overview of his nearly 13 months of activity on Wikipedia. Instead, it is just a collection of evidence concerning ongoing disputes, only looking back at episodes dating back before September 2005 to sheld light on current disputes. [5] 172 | Talk 23:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 172's deleted comment

The following comment by 172 was deleted from the main page. I think it's very bad form to delete other people's comments, but since the comment probably should have gone on the talk page in the first place I thought I'd move it here. Cadr 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The LaRouche editors (HK, Cognition, and some others) have been collaborating with Sam Spade for months. Note these nice words for Sam Spade by one of HK's LaRouche associates: Support I do not agree with this user's politics, but he has been an effective thorn in the side of the Synarchist faction which controls key articles on Wikipedia, the Chip Berlet-Jeremy Shapiro-Adam Carr-White Dawg axis and their cronies 172, SlimVirgin, willmcw, and Snowspinner. We need more fighters like this on arbcom. Cognition 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) [6] 172 | Talk 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but I don't think that was bad form — look at Cognition's edit summary about deleting 172's post in order to remove a "disgusting personal attack". Surely he merely wanted to remove his own personal attack, that 172 was quoting? (It's the only personal attack there was — "collaborating with Sam Spade" hardly qualifies, unless you have a really abysmal opinion of SS.) That's how I read it. I think it's fine that Cognition is mellowing out and cleaning up his old battleground edits. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps he did mean his own; that interpretation didn't occur to me, sorry. Cadr 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way he got blocked for it User_talk:Cognition#Block. The wikipedia power structure makes me sad. Sam Spade 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he was blocked for violating the Arbcom ruling of LaRouche 2, not for any edits here. Your own link makes that clear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, that link says that the block is being increased because of Cognition's deletion of 172's comment. (But rightly IMO, you shouldn't delete other people's comments.) Cadr 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of the comments on the is project page are improper. Their is no allowance for comments between signatures, or replies to my response. read the captions below each section header. For example:

Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I would have removed them, but given the controvercial nature of my status, refrained. This is an improper RfC from the get-go, almost none of these people ever tried to resolve their dispute with me on my talk page. Notice the complete mess here. Cognition was right to remove the comment in question. Sam Spade 13:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, most of us have no interest in how a RfC should be correctly formatted. Most of us just want to edit an encylopedia. Unfortunately, all this politics just gets in the way. The fact remains that these opinion still exist. If you choose to ignore them because it was not filed correctly or was slightly out of process it would be very strange behaviour. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't ignore it, when was the last time you've seen me edit any of the articles in question? You've successfully chased me off, huzzah for mob justice (so much for NPOV, Consensus, and encyclopedic standards...) Sam Spade 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance is still a form of ignoring and escaping the issues; if they are not dealt with, they will just recur again and again in other places in the future, even if you stay clear of the articles that have historically been troublesome in the past. This RfC was clearly not created to try to "chase you off" of any article; indeed, the fact that this RfC focused on a certain set of behaviors, rather than dealing exclusively with any one situation (rather, it listed a variety of situations that demonstrated these behaviors), shows that the issue is not with the articles themselves, no matter how controversial some may be, but with the inappropriate behaviors and attitudes that heightened tensions, escalated conflicts, and offended editors there. If you don't want to discuss this, that is, of course, your prerogative; but many of your fellow editors are strongly advising you, not to give up on articles where you have had issues in the past, but to confront and calmly discuss some of the problems, whether it be to defend your actions or to make amends and strive for change. Both are perfectly fine responses, as long as they are performed in a civil, open manner and with people's objections in mind (not dismissed out-of-hand). This is an intervention, not a witchhunt. -Silence 23:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't me who is being "troublesome" here, nor that is dismissing the arguments of others out of hand. Sam Spade 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, did you read Bishonen's outside view and note just how many people have endorsed it? JoshuaZ 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I went far further than that, I discussed it with her directly (or attempted to) on her talk page. Sam Spade 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you harrassed Bishonen to try and get her to stop participating in this RfC (and were briefly blocked for doing so, but my bud Andre was nice enough to let you off the hook). That's just yet another dirty tactic and method of avoidance. Rather than trying to find ways to ignore the very valid and in-good-faith criticisms of your fellow editors (by avoiding the pages they edit, claiming that trivial process variances like accompanying votes with brief comments invalidates the entire RfC, vaguely alluding to nefarious motives at work in causing so many users to take issue with your actions, and dismissing the important, well-reasoned points of other users as "mob justice"), why not specifically discuss the criticisms and comments users have made on the RfC page? I simply don't understand the point of being so indirect and melodramatic about a simple, open discussion like this. The only reason it at all seems like anyone is "ganging up" on you is because there are simply so many people who have had a similar problem with you in past interactions; that just makes it more important to deal with the issues presented here directly and frankly, since there's obviously no isolated incident (or even isolated set of incidents) at work here. -Silence 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you capable of thinking outside your box, or are you just planning on ranting at me until we both weary of it? Do you have anything to offer in the way of solutions or actionable critcism, or is this appeal to the people the extent of it? 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Starter suggestions : 1) When many users tell you that you are making POV edits, spend 5 to 10 minutes considering why they think so. 2) If you aren't getting anywhere with a set of editors and almost everyone but you agrees consider occasionally dropping the matter. 3) Before you post something ask "does this unecessarily attack anyone?" "does this accuse users of biases and agendas?" "will this help make the encyclopedia better?" JoshuaZ 20:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Done.
2. Done.
3. Thats alot of second guessing myself. Normally I follow Be Bold, and simply do what seems right. I can agree to consider your suggestion however.

I have a few requests myself (for all of you):

1. Write for the enemy
2. Accept Wikipedia:Policy, like NPOV, WP:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
3. Read NPOV, and then read it again.

Sam Spade 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what great advice - it leaves me wondering why you've never bothered to follow it yourself... Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silence says we're making progress

(High time for an ease of editing section break!)

• Settle down, guys. I think we're finally starting to make some progress; at least a dialogue has opened up! However, I don't think JoshuaZ's suggestions are all especially fair; "spending 5 to 10 minutes" thinking something over before responding is a bit extreme in most cases, and often less productive than doing things like asking questions, going back over your past behavior, explaining your motives and actions more clearly if there's been a misunderstanding, etc. "Dropping the matter" also isn't usually the best way to resolve a dispute; if a lot of people disagree with you but you're still sure you're right, then explain your view more clearly, analyze their discussions to make sure you haven't missed anything (and point out if they have), and, above all, don't get into an edit war. Discussion is almost always a good thing, as long as people keep an open mind and keep things civil, but it is true that when a large number of editors disagree with your version of a page, it's usually counterproductive to try to push for that version with continued reverts. Instead, explain to them why you feel that your version is preferable; don't assume that they won't listen when you haven't even tried to tell them what they should hear! If you think that there happen to be too many editors with a certain bias at a talk page to make much progress, then rather than launching unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations at them, try to attract more unbiased editors with an RfC or something. I also think that JoshuaZ's request that Sam ask himself "will this help make the encyclopedia better?" is a bit excessive, and conceivably an unjustified attack; what makes you think that Sam doesn't already think all the time about how to benefit the encyclopedia? Everything I've seen of his behavior makes me think that he's trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia; it's his methods that are often unintentionally destructive and inflammatory; speculating about his motives is fruitless, and would be doing the exact same thing that we're criticizing him for doing.
• So, I have what I feel are some better suggestions for you to consider, since you've very nicely asked us to provide you with specific recommendations. First and foremost of these is:
• Assume good faith. Other editors, even ones whom you disagree with, are your allies, not your enemies. Do not accuse them of deliberately violating policies, of having secret agendas to push radical POVs, of being ignorant of Wikipedia's basic policies, or of having ideas that are in any way inherently less worthy of consideration than your own; ideas are to be judged on the merits of the idea itself, not on the merits of the person giving it (surely you're familiar with the ad hominem logical fallacy by now). This is not to say that you can't criticize other users, and you can certainly criticize their ideas, but when you do so you should be able to back it up with specific, relevant evidence (for example, cite a recent example of their clearly misinterpreting a specific line of NPOV policy to show that they don't understand NPOV; don't just assume that they're completely ignorant regarding NPOV because they disagree with you on something!), and you should do it in a civil and non-inflammatory way, designed to inform them and correct a mistake or misunderstanding they've made, not just to discredit them and their perspective (as is usually the case with your "dirt-digging" and insinuations).
• The fact is, most of the experienced editors you're arguing with have already read the relevant policy pages. Not a single one of the cited disagreements you've had has been over whether those policy pages should be followed or not, despite your frequent straw man digressions along the lines of "Unlike my opponent, I believe that NPOV should be followed" (when the disagreement actually concerns a specific interpretation or implementation of policy, not the validity of the policy itself!). The fact is, different users interpret (and implement) different policies in different ways, and the most efficient and inoffensive way to resolve these disagreements is to clearly explain your interpretation and implementation strategy, and then to try to find out where, exactly, the disagreement or misunderstanding lies. Vilifying everyone who disagrees with you on such matters, and dismissing all their comments as demonstrating a complete ignorance of policy (even when they're actually remarkably similar to your interpretation), is completely unacceptable rhetorically-loaded editor-bashing. And, though linking Wikipedia newbies to relevant policy pages is a common and accepted practice, regularly linking experienced users to core policy pages and accusing them of being totally unfamiliar with them can constitute a personal attack, especially without any evidence that this is truly the case. More valuable would be quoting specific lines from a policy page, explaining your interpretation of those lines, and explaining exactly how the actions of the user you're arguing with have been inconsistent with that policy (interpretation); the other user can then explain either why he disagrees with your interpretation (which is not at all uncommon; many of Wikipedia's policies are complex and nuanced, and most have exceptions written into them somewhere, including the obnoxious catch-all page WP:IAR), or why he feels that his actions are consistent with your interpretation, but have been misunderstood or misrepresented. Either way, once the exact source of the disagreement has been isolated, it becomes much easier to work out a proper solution.
• In any interactive, consensus-driven endeavor, there will necessarily be numerous issues on which compromise is vital (even when you're certain that your version is 100% good and their version is 100% bad), and you should stop assuming that your version is always the neutral, unbiased "compromise" version and everyone else's is the biased, POV-pushing, policy-violating one. If you support one version and 50 users support another after a lengthy dicussion on the matter, odds are, considering that those 50 users are all intelligent, competent individuals in their own right who are no better or worse than you (despite being what you claim is a "mob"), that the version the 50 users support is preferable, and even a "compromise" version between the one with 50 supporters and the one with 1 supporter may not be necessary or beneficial. This is not to say that the majority is always right (far from it!); but, purely as a matter of basic statistics, the majority is usually right (more people = more views and experiences and thoughts).
• But what's more important is that you realize that discussion and listening to others' perspectives is vital even when you come into a discussion already sure that you're right and they're wrong (and hopefully you're never completely sure that you're right, as that closes your mind to too many potentially valid possibilities; personally, I'm never 100% certain of anything, even if I'm close to it on a few matters), and that it's equally vital to not try to push your version through force (e.g. repeated reverts while a productive discussion is still ongoing) and inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. "your versions are all POVed and mine isn't; go read NPOV and then re-read it, you agenda-pushing hoodlums!"), but rather through reasoned discussion and consensus-building. Assuming good faith, as WP:AGF points out, is "a fundamental principle on any wiki"; you must be more willing to assume much more good faith on the part of your fellow editors in the future, or these disputes will continue and become even more inflamed and needlessly divisive over time. If you must treat Wikipedia as a battleground, then at least attack the idea, not the user. -Silence 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats largely sensible. I don't agree with your characterization of my position or of the demographics involved and their importance, but I will admit that WP:AGF is a very difficult policy to follow, and that if it were followed by all parties involved, we would not be here now. So given that I generally agree with the spirit of your request, what next? Sam Spade 23:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Next, the hard part: putting the principle into practice. As you say, it's a difficult policy to follow; I've certainly failed to assume good faith at several key points in the past. So, just see how it goes in the coming weeks—and particularly see how you handle disputes, since you've said that for now you're trying to say out of contentious areas, but what you need in the long run is practice dealing with disagreement and outrageous claims (and there certainly are some!) tactfully, not just practice avoiding them altogether; they're inevitable. If you're having trouble assuming good faith in a certain case, I recommend asking other (preferably uninvolved) users for advice on whether you are justified in doubting a user's intentions or motivations in a certain case (I'll gladly lend my advice in any dispute you're having trouble with, for example, both/either on the issue itself and/or on whether the best routes have always been taken), and if other users who have no reason to deceive you recommend not being so quick to doubt the other user's good faith, strongly consider re-assessing the situation and working hard to tone down the conflict.

Beyond that, the only immediately beneficial thing I could see you doing in response to this RfC would be apologizing and clearly admitting your past failure to assume good faith in some cases. Although I'm sure that you still feel that most of your past actions have been justified, such a consession would go a very long way towards diffusing the concerns of a large number of your detractors. One of the biggest threats to a collaborative project is a user who can't own up to his mistakes, make amends, and change his behavior in accordance with the new information available; a lot of the users here are probably reacting so strongly to your behavior largely because they're worried that you have a very difficult, or even impossible, time in doing this. If you could show them very clearly that you aren't unwilling to listen and respond to criticism in a constructive way, and to show (but not tell :)) that you're the bigger man by not responding with hostility even though some of the comments on this RfC have been quite harsh indeed, I bet you could turn even some of your harshest critics into powerful allies for the future. If only for the purposes of reassuring your fellow editors that you are a lot more sensible and welcoming of critical feedback than some of them take you to be, I've found that apologizing for errors in judgment is almost as important as recognizing those errors in the first place!

However, if you don't feel comfortable at this point conceding that much, that's OK as well; much more important is the task of working to assume better faith in future conflicts. The latter could turn some enemies into friends and diffuse hostile conflicts into peaceful discussions, but the former will help prevent the creation of many potential future enemies and battles. Even when you're clearly in the right and they're clearly in the wrong (in your own analysis, at least), it always pays to assume good faith and remain civil and courteous. (Also, don't be offended by the fact that you probably already know most of this. I'm not assuming that you're an idiot just because you've had trouble in the past with assuming good faith in many situations; I'm confident that you, and many of the other editors involved in this RfC, including myself, can continue to grow as editors and societal beings over time. Perhaps that's because I sometimes assume too much good faith. :)) -Silence 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If Sam doesn't agree with Silence's characterization of his position, given that it's pretty sympathetic, I think it's fair to say that we haven't made any progress at all. Cadr 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we are done here: ON May 1, 2006 OR before that date anytime Silence says he gives up OR Sam and Silence agree on objectively verifyable behavior (ie somebody is agreed on to make the subjective calls) for Sam for a period of one year. Whatever the outcome (for example Sam agrees to something and a majority don't think that's good enough); it will be better for arbcom to have the data that results from this attempt than for arbcom to not have the data that results from this attempt. WAS 4.250 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the next step is arbcom if no agreement is made or an agreement is broken. Therefore maybe the agreement should specify exactly how fully the agreement must be broken to invoke arbcom. For example, the agreement could mimick the wording of an actual arbcom decision with penalties including blocks. We have plenty of editors here with blocking ability who can be counted on to eagerly enforce any such agreement. (The person making the subjective calls should be known to be neutral, but his decision could then be enforced by anyone with blocking abilities.) Basically, I'm visualizing Sam agreeing to an arbcom like agreement hammered out with Sam as far as agreed on penalties for breaking the agreement. What else it might contain is between Silence and Sam. Naturally, no one other than Sam and Silence have to agree to whatever they come up with. This is simply a last ditch effort by the community prior to an arbcom, and if Sam prefers an arbcom he can just say so and save time and effort. WAS 4.250 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is an "arbcom like agreement" better than an arbcom agreement?

But, WAS, making the kinds of agreements you suggest is exactly what the community (along with Jimbo) got itself an ArbCom for! The ArbCom is the means that the community's has come up with for making such last ditch efforts. You speak as if there's something inherently undesirable about a real RFAR, something that must be avoided via your suggested mimicry RFAR. How is "an arbcom like agreement" better than an actual arbcom agreement? It's obviously worse in some ways: introducing the extra level would bring more bureaucracy and more process; in other words, it would raise the likelihood of this already time-consuming effort getting lost in the sands, as contributors clock up yet another discussion round out of their editing time (how many unwritten articles has this RFC eaten so far?) to argue about the procedures for such a mock, or extra, or dress-rehearsal RFAR. What for? Silence is nice and all, and I have the greatest respect for what he's trying to do, but is he that much better at this hammering-out kind of thing than the real ArbCom? It's what they do; they've had a lot of practice. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

If a sincere effort has been made to deal with Sam's differences of opinions and his boldness in helping Wikipedia in ways most find unhelpful; then I have yet to see it. I am not saying it hasn't been done, but I have not seen it and I think Silence and Sam should be given until May 1 to find out if arbcom is needed or not. Arbcom is not to be used instead of trying to work it out. Let 'em try. Why give Sam the excuse no one sincerely tried? Let Silence try and if it fails we will have consensus on the fact that Arbcom is needed. WAS 4.250 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been trying... for years. Most of us just decided to forget about articles on his watchlist, as it is too tedious to keep on arguing with him, and so much work for one person to write up an arbcom case... Meanwhile, Sam Spade puts little effort-- to say the least-- in trying to 'work things out' when he goes on his regular inquisitions (some of which he even lists here.) 172 | Talk 12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Losing some indent.) I don't see any indication on this page that Silence or SS intend to try what you propose, WAS. I have to say I would rather see the proposal from them, the people who would actually be involved. They haven't responded to your post, nor did Silence offer to try anything of the kind in any of his previous posts, so we're hardly entitled to assume he's prepared to. I invite Silence and SS to put a proposal on this page if they have one, so other people will have some basis for deciding whether it's worth holding back on the RFAR or not. It's just a terrible idea to expect the people who brought this RFC to hang around on the off-chance that a beneficial process is taking place behind the scenes, while the evidence they've already collected grows stale. It will be a lot of work to collect yet another batch of diffs; people have articles to write and RL commitments to honor, they can't spend their lives trying to bring Sam Spade to account, and they shouldn't have to. Btw, WAS, I take issue with your repeated and bolded accusation that "no one sincerely tried"; as far as it relates to this RFC, it can presumably only mean that what people are doing here is pretending to try. That's invidious. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree completely with I invite Silence and SS to put a proposal on this page if they have one,. We should only wait til May 1 if actual effort is evident on a regular basis by both Silence and Sam. And so far I also see no evidence of sincere efforts by Sam. And just as in my earlier statements concerning sincere efforts, I again state this does not mean they have not taken place, I am only saying I have not seen them. WAS 4.250 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are, and I did take your emphasis on not having seen any sincere efforts into account, you know. That was why I qualified my comment by saying "as far as it relates to this RFC". Surely you've seen this RFC? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

We apparently misunderstand one another. I thought it was obvious that I was not referring to "this RFC"; because I am in support of this RFC; I am trying to make this RFC succeed in helping the problem; I am trying to not throw away this RFC and replace it with arbcom unless and until it itself can be used as current proof we tried and failed to resolve the issue, thereby getting "our ducks in arow" if/when arbcom becomes the next appropriarte step. You are saying ready, fire I am saying ready, aim, (then if necessary) fire. If Sam responds appropriate to this situation, then arbcom will not be needed. If he refuses to work in a productive helpful proactive way with Silence and merely keeps saying "what next"; then "what next" is arbcom. Sam asked for this mediation with this comment on his talk page:

I'd be glad to join you under the eye of policy scrutiny. Mediation would be the next step. Sam Spade 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All he needs to do for this mediation to be successful is to agree to put teeth into this statement of his on his talk page so if he breaks this resolution of his anytime before some agreed on date then admins can legitimately block him for it (otherwise, arbcom is necessary):

Thank you, thats very thoughtful. I have decided to rethink my role here, and to focus on improving articles which are free from conflict. The wikipedia has a bad system for resolving differences of opinion, and I have spent too much time experiencing that. It does however have alot of good people (such as yourself) and positive aspects. I plan to spend what little time I am here interacting with pleasent people and unconflicted pages for the foreseable future. Thank you again for your note, Sam Spade 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) WAS 4.250 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think your talking about, but if you find an arbcom case to be necessary, I suggest you attempt Wikipedia:Dispute resolution first, I wasn't even aware you had a problem w me, 4.250

Sam Spade 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Sam, if you're at all interested in the possibility of resolving the disputes catalogued in this RfC peacefully and simply, I strongly advise replying to my previous comment on this Talk page with your thoughts regarding my proposals. I've tried to keep the tone of this discussion layed-back and cooperative, but people are quickly becoming impatient with your unresponsiveness; I think your response could determine whether this situation can simply be diffused and people can move on, or whether ArbCom will become necessary. It's up to you. -Silence 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I found you suggestion disagreeable, and had no immediate comment. Perhaps I would have responded by now, but the atmosphere here is polluted. You (Silence) seem like a nice person, and I assume good faith in your regards. I can assume good faith of other specific individuals, but I cannot honestly claim to assume good faith on the part of all parties.

Similarly I can apologize for specific things, but a general apology for having been myself is rather odd, and won't help matters. I am willing to discuss with you in a polite and controlled environment, but this is a freakshow.

I don't respond well to threats. If people feel they have a valid arbcom case against me, and wish to see me discontinue editing, they can attempt to impose sanctions on me. I certainly won't edit if that is the case. There will be no "teeth", formal or otherwise, because I won't continue to assist a project dominated by unpleasent individuals.

I advise those parties uninterested in polite discussion to engage in an arbcom case. I'll be very busy for the foreseable future, and perhaps they can help convince me to cease editing. I have the final say in regards to my involvement with this project, and am beginning to be convinced that I dislike it here. The project has some good policies, and some good people, but it appears that too much allowance for abuse is choking them out. The collaborative editing process here is not working. Perhaps someday that will change, but I see no reason for optimism here and now. Sam Spade 15:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I don't respond well to threats" is the main reason I tried to tone things down a bit and hold off the ArbCom warnings and other "or else"s: I didn't think threats would be remotely effective in resolving this conflict. But, oh well. You seem to have all but given up, and most of the other users in this RfC have reached the boiling point and just want to see decisive, administrative action as soon as possible, not more bargains and negotiations. So, I guess there's only one thing left to do, if people are so determined about it. Good luck, and see you later. -Silence 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry things didn't work out the way you hoped, your involvement here was beneficial, even if your solutions didn't sway the hearts and minds of some of the more intractable among the opposition. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I'm not going to give up hope on you, or anybody else here. :) Here's to an orderly and unmelodramatic arbitration! -Silence 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's be clear

Ok, it seems to me that:

1. Sam isn't interested in having a serious discussion about his conduct. Despite the broad-based criticism, he has not made any real admission of error on his part. The possibilities for resolving this through discussion with Sam seem to have been exhausted (in reality, they were probably exhausted over a year ago...)
2. We had therefore better take this to ArbCom.

Do we all agree on this? Or am I being too hasty? Cadr 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking everybody, or merely the people who brought the RFC, who I think would be the natural composers of an RFAR. This because they already have their telling diff collections and writeups, which would be appropriate and convenient to recycle (provided you don't wait for the material to get too old first). But for what it's worth, I do agree. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

I think everyone agrees its arbcom time. WAS 4.250 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hgilbert 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed-- and at least a couple of years too late. 172 | Talk 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been very hesitant to get involved in this dispute at all since I'm a new user, but I've spent the past few days reading the discussion pages that Sam has been involved in, and his persistent unreasonableness is quite evident. He is right: everyone else is wrong. He is NPOV, everyone else is POV. He acts in good faith; everyone else has an ulterior motive. His view is in the majority; if it isn't, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And so on.

Personally, I think the guy is essentially a sophisticated troll, getting his jollies from frustrating and upsetting other users who are editing in good faith - while hypocritically hiding behind Wiki policy to avoid criticism. But in terms of this particular resolution, I can't see what other choice there is when he refuses to even participate (as usual) in discussion of his behaviour on the grounds that "the atmosphere here is polluted". Gatoclass 12:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade gives it a try

I have made it clear thruout that I willing to discuss issues both specific and general, so long as a civil atmosphere is maintained. I offered to discuss with Silence in another venue, and I offer to discuss with any one of you here or elsewhere, so long as policy regarding wikiquette is obeyed. Sam Spade 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well do it then. There's a detailed catalogue of those aspects of your behaviour which other Wikipedians find difficult to handle. Discuss it. Say what you're going to do differently. Now. Cadr 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, an occasional lapse of wikiquette (as is inevitable in any large discussion like this) is no excuse not to participate. On the whole all the posters here have been very restrained. Cadr 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am already doing something differently, I am declining to help people asking me for assistance, and refraining from editing the articles in question. I also made clear I assume good faith on the part of Silence, at least, and that I am aware of AGF being a problem for alot of people present. My main plan is to avoid conflict, as it seems less than worthwhile for me. What else would you like me to do? Sam Spade 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been said a few times by now, we don't just want you to stop editing one set of articles and move onto another, as is your usual pattern, but address the issues raised in this RFC. There is much more to this RFC than just AGF, and even now all you're saying is that you assume good faith on the part of one person editing here! Nevermind the rest of us, or the people on talk pages referenced in this RFC. If you are seriously planning to avoid conflict by not editing anything, that's fine I guess. But if you plan to continue editing Wikipedia, you're going to have to explain how you're going to avoid conflict -- and you can only do that by addressing the issues in this RFC. Cadr 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly plan on reverting a whole lot less, that doesn't seem to help matters much. I also think I'll be more quick to call in outside input. I started making a list of people to contact for various reasons awhile back, but my HD died and I never got back to it. I think calling for backup and requesting a second opinion would help matters alot. I would like to point out that what you call "mov[ing] on to another" is what I call respecting consensus. While there wasn't any consensus on Socialism or Human, there was a consensus against me @ God. I would certainly say that it was in the wrong, but I stopped reverting nonetheless. Really this is all a systemic problem, we need something other than popularity contest winning admins to turn to when POV strikes. Sam Spade 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, in all honesty you have missed the point. Even if you make an effort to stop those actions, your attitude is still the same - that everyone else is wrong. That creates an unnecessary incentive for you to continue with the mentioned behaviour, whether you try to stop it or not. You should stop asserting and re-asserting yourself to be NPOV, and accept other people's input and allow them to shape your own ideas. -- infinity0 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a big generalization. I am not always neutral in everything. Nor are any of you. I know which areas I am biased in, and which I am not. On the human article for example I fought for a biological perspective when their wasn't one, and against the pathological skeptic dominance which has taken over now. At no time did I even mention my own personal opinion, which I could discuss w you off-wiki sometime if your interested.

My opinions are listed here: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases. The fact that people so often think I believe things I don't just goes to show how good at writing for the enemy I am. Some expletive on the mailing list recently accused me of being a Jack Chic style biblical literalist! People who don't know me have no place trying to school me regarding biases they project onto me. I am happy to take clear and sensible advice however, if you can express it is specific and polite terms. Sam Spade 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you refuse to acknowledge the problem, and have no intention of fixing it. That should save some time, at any rate. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thats definitely not what I said, how about you re-read it. Sam Spade 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In a paragraph you wrote above, I saw some of the style that has created obstacles for you in the past. First you wrote "show how good at writing for the enemy I am". Second you have divided your statements into pro and anti at your page of theoretical biases. Both of these comes across as black and white positions. You often imply that you have a position of "I am right you are wrong" (at least this is how I have often read it). Whether you write for the enemy or not, your black and white positions do cause friction. You need to spend more time to try an convince others that you are right. Also you need to be more open to the chance that you might be wrong. This would go a long way to help other editors work with you in a cordial atmosphere. You will win some, and lose some of the arguments, but regardless, it is likely you'll find most editors will respect your opinion if you try this approach. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point, thank you David. Sam Spade 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, there have been many times that you have been right (in my opinion) in your fight against this or that group-think; but because you resort to something other than a polite (can I emphasize "polite" enough here?) rebuttal, I can not take part in any way. You must be nice if you are in the minority. One should be nice even in the majority, but there is less necessity. WAS 4.250 00:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think politeness can be overemphasized. Were it up to me I would make some rather substantial policy changes, like removing the ability to revert, and installing a rather draconian WP:CIVILITY policy. Unfortunately there isn't alot of interest in what I think among the higher-ups, and I'm not exactly Jesus Christ. I'm a pretty nice guy, but if you push me, I might end up kicking the hell out of you. Thats just how I was raised. Turning the other cheek has never been something I can relate to. If you notice, I try very hard to be nice to people who are nice to me. I am no abuser of the innocent. I admit that people who treat me rudely or behave in a manner I deem abusive end up with a rather low status in my view. I think I need to be a bit more Christian and forgiving of those who trespass against me here. Sam Spade 10:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the need to turn the other cheek, "be more Christian". As an atheist, I find Christian values such as "turn the other cheek' to be very utilitarian. Think of it as rising above one's animal nature and being superior to those around you who allow their animal instincts to rule them rather than using their mind to rule their animal insticts. Concentrate on how that makes you a superior person and you'll get great satisfaction from "turning the other cheek". I know I do. WAS 4.250 11:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are actually discussing the issues now Sam. Maybe some progress can be made here after all.

In which case I have a couple of points to make. Firstly, I've noticed that you often seem to take the POV that "I'm NPOV, everyone else is POV". This not only comes across as arrogant, but it's just downright insupportable. NOBODY is in possession of "NPOV", least of all exclusively. God may arguably have NPOV, but the rest of us are just fallible human beings doing our best to make sense of the world on the basis of our limited personal experience.

So perhaps a first step would be for you to quit asserting that "you have NPOV". Be prepared to recognize that no one person is ever likely to be in possession of such, including you. True NPOV is more likely to come from collaboration with a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and experience. And that I think is what people would like to see - a greater willingness to collaborate on your part.

Secondly, while Wiki "is not a democracy" as you like to keep reminding people, it is supposed to be a consensus based enterprise. Might I then suggest that, when you do find yourself to be in the minority on a discussion page, that you at least stop insisting that your POV take pride of place in the article. Instead, I suggest that in such circumstances you learn to be content with a mention of your POV at some point in the article, perhaps with a caveat that this is a minority view. (I'm thinking in this case of the "Nazi mysticisim" page, where you have apparently insisted that bizarre crackpot theories about dinosaurs and Nazi moonbases lead the page).

That I think might at least be a start. Gatoclass 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few things to be said about that. NPOV is as you said, a harmony of divergent POV's. It is not any one persons perspective, nor is it absolute truth.

NPOV (real NPOV, as in all verifiable expert (or "notable") POV's) trumps consensus. It is absolute and non-negotiable. Removing on topic cited text is also a serious violation of policy, which no amouint of consensus can excuse. So for example, in the God article, the consensus was wrong when it decided to remove my multiple citations that the majority of people believe in God[7]. Further I would point out that this was a highly tenuous "consensus", consisting only of a couple of others willing to discuss on the talk page, and a couple more willing only to revert without discussion.

Nazi mysticism is another fine example. The craziness is cited. Some say the citations are not of the highest possible quality. What are we expecting from a subject of this sort? There are experts, and I cite them, their are copious verifiable claims their is absolutely no reason to exclude, other than the opinions of editors that "most historians reject them". Sorry, but this unverifiable "most experts claim..." rhetoric does not work with me. Sources must be cited if claims are to be made.

You seem to be misunderstanding trhe difference between my POV (which does not btw include Hitler riding w dino friends beneath the hollow earth) and NPOV, the inclusion of verifiable, cited info. Sam Spade 10:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam you need to be humble enough to understand that you can be wrong for reasons you do not yet understand. Just accept that as true. Then when the majority is against you, remind yourself that it is possible that that is one of those times. WAS 4.250 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to take your points one by one Sam:

NPOV is as you said, a harmony of divergent POV's. It is not any one persons perspective, nor is it absolute truth.

That at least is something I think we can all agree on. The next statement though, is problematic:

NPOV (real NPOV, as in all verifiable expert (or "notable") POV's) trumps consensus. It is absolute and non-negotiable.

Firstly, while you may be correct that "all verifiable expert or notable POV's" should be considered NPOV, what you don't appear to realize is that what constitutes a "verifiable expert or notable POV" is itself open to debate. You can't just assume that your opinion on what constitutes a, or the, "notable POV" is the correct one.

Secondly, I'm afraid I find this notion of yours that "NPOV trumps consensus" to be somewhat disturbing. I suspect that it's this attitude of yours that is probably at the heart of your conflicts with other users.

Wiki is by its very nature a consensus enterprise. Whether the end result of that consensus is accurate or inaccurate, whether it pleases you or not, I think the consensus position must still be respected. Because if users aren't going to respect each other's opinions, then it's only going to lead to fruitless edit wars in any case.

IF you disagree with the consensus position on a Wiki entry, then I think you must learn to persuade the others that your position is the correct one. And if you can't persuade them, then be prepared to compromise. Or perhaps to walk away without satisfaction. After all, it's not as though a flawed Wiki entry is the worst thing in the world.

Removing on topic cited text is also a serious violation of policy, which no amount of consensus can excuse.

I don't know what you mean by "a serious violation of policy", but I would point out to you that what constitutes "on topic" is again, a matter of POV. You can't just assume a text is "on topic" because you think it is. If there's a dispute about whether or not a text is on topic, then that ought to be enough for you to recognize that your cherished "on topic" text is probably not so NPOV after all. And in that circumstance, to be prepared to debate the issue thoroughly with your opponents.

So for example, in the God article, the consensus was wrong when it decided to remove my multiple citations that the majority of people believe in God[7]. Further I would point out that this was a highly tenuous "consensus", consisting only of a couple of others willing to discuss on the talk page, and a couple more willing only to revert without discussion.

"The consensus was wrong"? Here you go again with your absolutist statements. It's this kind of absolutist thinking that is getting you into trouble.

Have a little humility, for goodness' sakes. In your opinion the consensus was wrong. You are not God!

You know I actually agree with you on some of your positions on the God page. For example, I think you are correct to argue that "God" without any qualifier refers to the Deity not "a" Deity. I also agree that the descriptor of God as "Supreme Being" probably belongs somewhere in the opening sentence or paragraph. I think the current God page as it stands is in need of work.

I don't however agree with you at all that the statement that "a majority" believe in God belongs on the God page. I think it's utterly irrelevant whether all, some or no people believe in God. The page is there to elucidate the multiple meanings of the term "God", not to establish His alleged popularity or lack of it. An argument like that might perhaps belong on a page devoted to religious belief or something similar.

So in my opinion the consensus was not wrong on that particular point. Whether or not "a majority" believe in God is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You need to recognize that there may be more than one legitimate POV. And that yours may not always be the right one. In fact, I think you would probably do well to start from the assumption that your opinion is never right - but just one POV among many. I'm sure you'd get on a whole lot better with other users if you adopted such an attitude.

You seem to be misunderstanding trhe difference between my POV (which does not btw include Hitler riding w dino friends beneath the hollow earth) and NPOV, the inclusion of verifiable, cited info.

No, I am not misunderstanding your POV, or objecting to the inclusion of this material. I'm objecting to the inclusion of this material in the opening paragraph, as though this kind of crackpot fringe material deserves pride of place. It doesn't. At best it deserves a paragraph or two at the bottom of the page. In my opinion. Gatoclass 15:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We disagree on some particulars (gatoclass, WAS 4.250, and I) but I agree with you enough to compromise, and accept your stance. I have a lot going on in my life, and haven't the time to fight everyone all the time about everything. I happen to think the number of people believing in God is relevant to the God article, but I am willing to step back from conflict. Sam Spade 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot going on in my life, and haven't the time to fight everyone all the time about everything. Excellent. This is what this whole thing is about. Everyone here feels the same way. No one here wants to waste their time in pointless behavior. Once consensus seems obvious to everyone but you, you should accept that consensus exists even if you disagree that concensus exists. Do something else for a day or week, then politely talk with one other person on their talk page about it if you still feel you can convince them of whatever. Treat both your time and our time like it has value. Respect yourself too much to waste your time and be humble enough to accept you might just possibly be wrong anyway. WAS 4.250 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see you are willing to compromise Sam. However, I have my doubts that a vague commitment from you of this nature is going to satisfy your more trenchant critics, some of whom appear to have a history of disputation with you going back years.

In fact it occurs to me I am completely wasting my time on this page as the majority may already have decided to take the matter to arbcom. However, since I think you have shown a willingness here to consider modifying your behaviour, it's worth at least proposing some sort of alternative to arbcom that may satisfy both parties. Basically, I'm thinking of some sort of voluntary code of conduct that you might be persuaded to agree to, which your critics would also be willing to accept as an alternative to arbcom.

Here's one suggestion on what such a code of conduct might look like. I've noticed that in defending your edits you like to quote the Wiki policy that "consensus should not trump NPOV". The first part of that policy explains why the policy exists, I quote:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

However, you often appear to ignore the second paragraph, which deals with the preferred method of dealing with this problem:

The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.

Now, if we could get you to agree, say, to either abide by the preferred method of resolving such disputes, or else accept the majority view on that page and drop your proposed edit, then perhaps your critics might also agree to such a commitment on your part as an alternative to arbcom. What do you think? Would you be willing to accept a voluntary code of conduct something like this as an alternative to arbcom? Gatoclass 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats a great idea. I am certainly willing to obey policy, and I'll go one further, and consider becomming a WP:harmonious editor again. I will do my utmost to obey the above policy suggestion. Sam Spade 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam's edit

Well, Sam has just reverted edits on the Nazi mysticism page, restoring the dinosaurs and Nazi bases in Antarctica and on the moon. Do we all think that this is working? I suggest a further step is necessary now. Hgilbert 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this should be taken to Arb Com. This is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The only edit Sam made after he made his pledge is here where he "moved a contentious issue down" which is as far as I can tell, what Sam's opposition wanted all along. The prior edit by Sam on this page was before he agreed to play nice. Wait till he screws up since his pledge to be nice. We all know there are plenty of examples of his frustrating behavior before his pledge. And if he hasn't turned over a new leaf (or even if he is just half trying to), surely an example won't be long in waiting. I'm just saying edits before his pledge can't be held as indicating anything about the pledge that was made after the edits in question. But, yes, it is ridiculous for him to have made that edit immediately prior to his pledge. He should say "I'm sorry" or some other polite thing, indicating concern for the emotional pain he has caused and the time he has wasted whether believes he has caused any or not; it's part of dealing with people as people and not tools or playthings (and if he can't respect our emotions enough to ease the pain he has caused, then there is indeed no hope). WAS 4.250 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam's opposition??? Sorry? Perhaps people are opposed to putting suggestions about Nazi UFOs and moon bases and interbreeding with dinosaur races living in the center of the Earth in what is trying to be an encyclopedia of accurate information.

To be clear: Sam made 2 edits in the last few days, one on 21 April 2006, restoring all the unusual theories (I am trying to find neutral words for somewhat odd ideas). The second, on 22 April, moved these paragraphs down to play a somewhat less prominent role. I have reverted the article to its pre-oddball status.Hgilbert 12:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to get more than a little silly. ArbCom is not a death sentence; there's no assurance that they'd even rule against Sam if we brought his case to them, and they certainly wouldn't do anything too drastic. Why do we have to keep playing these back-and-forth games? -Silence 04:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just thought that since Sam has shown some willingness to discuss his conduct, perhaps his critics might be prepared to negotiate some other solution. After all, as you yourself say, if they don't rule against Sam, or if their ruling is not to your satisfaction, what alternative will you have then?

But look, if you want to take it to arbcom, I'm not going to stand in your way, after all I'm pretty much a noob on Wiki and I'm not obviously not as familiar with Sam's behaviour as many of you guys. And I hate to say it but, I just think Sam's contribution to the Nazi mysticism page makes a mockery of Wiki, no matter where on the page it appears. Hgilbert has, I think, already been more than generous to the "Nazi moonbase" theory just by putting it at the top of the link section. Gatoclass 07:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where your coming from w this, but the edit I made was a compromise edit. I don't intend some sort of perpetual limbo of threats from my detractors and apologies from myself. That is not a compromise I accept. Previous to this thread I found myself agreeing with gatoclass and WAS 4.250 about some solutions (as far as I knew).

Hgilbert has no place being involved in this RfC, as he has a RfM with me on this subject at the present time, and he never tried and failed to resolve these issues with me personally. He has a POV ("the material is considered essentially loony by most historians"), which is unverifiable. If he can cite a historian contesting the claims, that would be fine. I am happy to continue citing sources in that article, but would appreciate it if persons with no detailed knowledge of the subject not insult my work on the article: "Sam's contribution to the Nazi mysticism page makes a mockery of Wiki".

After achieving Featured article status w Human, Nazi mysticism was my next goal. I had also discussed bringing the socialism article up to WP:FA status w an avowed communist, User:Nikodemos. These plans have been largely smashed by an organized effort to enforce pathological skepticism and rose-tinted socialist POV's. I admit that edit warring on my part is not helping these problems, and am willing to unilaterally obey Gatoclass's policy suggestion. Giving up on the wikipedia entirely is also something I do not rule out. What I do rule out is intellectual dishonesty, grovelling, or perpetual humiliation at the hands of those who threaten me. Sam Spade 10:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also difficult to find sources to proof that scientists generally contest that the moon is made of green cheese. Nevertheless the Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition is essentially loony. --Pjacobi 12:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure with a moments effort you could find some expert clarifying what the moon is made of. Sam Spade 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This says the moon is made of Basalt. Of course we won't find an expert who claims that Hitler flies in a UFO beneath the earths crust (well... probably not...), but you can find an expert who discusses Nazi mysticism, and the claims of some who refer to themselves as "esoteric hitlerists" or whatever. I've found several such experts, the most distinguished secondary source being Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. There are also plenty of primary sources, like Miguel Serrano, Himmler, and etc... Sam Spade 13:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth saying that I tried to discuss these issues both on the Talk:Nazi mysticism page and on Sam's talk page. Apparently my suggestions for changes all violated NPOV, however; Sam at least kept informing me of this. Hgilbert 12:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We are currently engaged in mediation User:Hgilbert, and engaging in multiple aspects of the dispute resolution process is frowned upon. One thing at a time, please. I am glad to work with you to improve the article in question, and simply ask that rather than removing cited content provided by others, that you provide citations backing up your own claims. Sam Spade 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

These plans have been largely smashed by an organized effort to enforce pathological skepticism and rose-tinted socialist POV's. - Sam, please remember WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your repeated attempts to label people who disagree with you as POV are not good for wikipedia. We the editors are good people. As far as I have experienced, Nikodemos is far less extreme in his views that you are. -- infinity0 13:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is POV. What I was discussing is how what happened on Human rolled over into Talk:Socialism, and then took on a life of its own. I was also pointing out how my own goals, of bringing certain articles to FA status have been signifigantly set back by these proceedings. Currently I have no intention of devoting any large amount of effort to any page, but rather of making mild improvements to obscure articles (such as I recently have done @ Prosciutto). If the compromise gatoclass offered and I accepted is good enough, great. If this is instead going to be a perpetual distraction from useful tasks, or a second-class status for myself, that is unacceptable. Sam Spade 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV but that doesn't mean they are POV in their edits. You may think you are being NPOV, but understand and realise that other editors also think they are being NPOV. -- infinity0 13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am "being" NPOV. I think that I understand what NPOV means however. It means the inclusion of divergent, verifiable POV's. It does not involve making claims like "Socialism opposes racism". Instead it involves citing sources (like the Third International) stating that socialism opposes racism alongside sources exposing Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Stalin and Hitler making statements widely seen as racist. You might not think the last 3 ever are Socialists at all, and could therefore cite expert sources disputing their socialism. What you should nebver do is simplly write "most experts think.." before providing your view. Thats not NPOV, nor is it proper citing of sources. Sam Spade 13:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is neutrality, not sourcability or reliability. You just described the latter. "most experts think" is neither NPOV or POV - it is a verifiable truth or falsehood. -- infinity0 13:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal vs. informal

Hang on infinity, to be fair, it was me who unintentionally started the slanging match this time, by referring to Sam's edit in a derogatory manner.

Let's try and get this discussion back on track. What I will try to do is come up with some formal proposal for a code of conduct which Sam and others might be prepared to agree to, and then put it as a resolution. Then users can vote to endorse either the code of conduct, or to go straight to arbcom instead. That way we can settle the matter once and for all. I'm really not up to this right now though, it's late and I'm tired, I'm afraid it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • At this point, it seems to me like the best course would be to expect Sam to not violate the informal agreement he's made, and to bring people's grievances to ArbCom. I don't see why we should have to use ArbCom as a threat: "do x, y and z, or else..!" Clearly this is a major dispute, spanning dozens of users and a number of years, and is thus worth hearing the Arbitration Committee's opinion on. Then, regardless of what they say or rule, it's still to be expected that Sam, like every other Wikipedia user, will abide by WP:NPOV and WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and etc. (and the same for his detractors). Rather than leaving the arbitration that so many have asked for looming like a stormcloud overhead, why not get it over with so we can all move on to more productive endeavors? -Silence 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to describe a proposal for a formal code of conduct in lieu of arbitration "a threat". It's offering Sam a choice, that's all. A choice that, because voluntarily agreed to by all parties, ought to have a good chance of success.

I've simply proposed it because I thought we had an obligation to exhaust the possibility of consensus before going to arbitration. And I think it would be better if that was clearly done first. I've just tried to come up with a solution that I think would be fair to everyone involved. But if no-one is willing to support the idea, then I'm just as happy to drop it. Gatoclass 14:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't make any formal agreements, but I have already informally agreed to your request. There is no reason for voting, Wikipedia:Quickpolls are no longer allowed. Please keep in mind, Voting is anti-wiki. Sam Spade 13:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A formal code of conduct is a good idea, but before that can work Sam has to acknowledge and accept our criticisms. -- infinity0 13:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But surely if Sam agrees to a formal code of conduct, that is proof enough that he has tacitly accepted a need to modify his behaviour?

Sam, I honestly don't think an informal agreement is going to satisfy anyone, because then there will be no clear indication of when you have breached your commitment. Which puts us all back to square one.

I would remind you that if it goes to arbcom instead, you may find yourself much more severely restricted than by a voluntary agreement on your part, formal or otherwise. And it's not as though I'm proposing to dictate an agreement, the point is that we can all have input into it, including you, so that it's something we can all agree on. Gatoclass 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with Silence, this is getting silly; somebody start the RfAR, please?

I totally agree with Silence's two posts above. This see-saw is getting silly, especially with so many people repeating that it's time and please please to just do it. Won't one of the people who have recent traumatic experiences of trying to edit "Sam's" articles please simply make a start by posting a short request on WP:RFAR, and then other people can add to it? The people who supplied the diffs to the RFC, and who could simply recycle those on WP:RFAR, come to mind. If I was in that category I'd do it myself, but it's a long time since I edited with SS, and there seems little point in unearthing the ancient diffs from when I did, it's recent events that count. The reason I stopped trying to edit within Sam's perimeter — inside his barbed wire — was that the experience gave me wikiburnout every time. If my reaction there is common, as I believe, then that's one reason SS needs to change his ways. There are others. I will make the start myself if need be, but I really think there are people who'd be more appropriate, more persuasive, better. Silence, what about you starting us off? David? KillerChihuahua? JoshuaZ? Jim? (I won't call on Infinity0, I know he has exams.) Bishonen | talk 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

I don't think Sam is capable of telling the difference between "perpetual humiliation" and the behavior we wish him to demonstrate. I have no hope for different behavior from someone for which this is true. Fred Bauder's essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy comes to mind. WAS 4.250 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I know he has exams That hits the nail on the head as to why this task has not been done a long time ago. Some people have exams. Some people are grading exams. Some people work. I'd suggest pulling staws to determine who has do the work, but that probably won't work online. 172 | Talk 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, writing up the arbcom request is not as much work as you guys may fear. The individual arbitrators largely know the cast of characters involved here well enough to reach sound judgments without a mountain of evidence present formally presented to them. As similar case was my request against Silverback. My request was largely made up of cut-and-paste excerpts from the RfC, and-- opps-- I didn't even get around to posting any evidence. [8] But the arbitrators sanctioned his disruptive behavior anyway, as they care more about making the job of constructive editors less stressful than Wiki technicalities. 172 | Talk 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde? Bishonen | talk 06:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I oppose Arbcom prior to allowing more comment and feedback on this RfC. Merecat 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The request for arbitration has already been posted. Cadr 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't set up an ArbCom while simultaneously continuing discussion here. Why must the two be mutually exclusive? If different users are interested in pursuing both measures, let 'em. -Silence 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meercat's outside view

The quality of Sam's edits is usually excellent. At the same time, I'd prefer that he modify his approach, as a number of those complaining here do feel vexed. Right or wrong, Sam is out numbered on this page and because discretion is the better part of valor, he needs to take care in his dealings with those who complain. On the other hand, Sam's been around a long time, so when he says "...for those who insist on article quality the system is broken." and "...I see the bias here growing, rather than dissipating over time" we ought to pay some heed. I took the time to go way back and look at Sam's edits from as far back as I could see them. Sam has done a tremendous amount of positive editing for the wiki. Frankly, I see only a few names on the list of those who complain here that have done as much for the wiki as Sam. If it were up to me, I'd discount the complaints (and defenses) of everyone here who's got less than 80% of Sam's edit total and I'd let the long time, experienced editors like Sam and 172, Mel Etitis, FeloniousMonk, etc., discuss this among themselves. The magnitude of the piling-on here turns this from what is should be - an attempt at improving communication among editors, to what RfC's seem to too often become - a pigpile of gripes, where those who are unhappy go out of their way to gang up on someone and kick them when they are down. Whether you like him personally or not, Sam has earned the right to be treated better than this.

• I'd endorse this comment if it merely pointed out that Sam Spade has a phenomenal history of fantastic contributions to this encyclopedia. I doubt anyone at this RfC disputes that clear fact; indeed, I'm pretty sure that one of the main reasons this dispute was brought to RfC in the hopes of peaceful resolution, rather than taking it straight to ArbCom, was out of respect for Sam's clear dedication to the project and improving articles. However, you go farther than that, unfortunately, and make the following claims which I cannot in good conscience endorse:
• (1) You ask us not merely to acknowledge and appreciate Sam's many good contributions to Wikipedia, but to excuse everything he's ever done or will do based on those contributions. In other words, because Sam has made a lot of edits, he can do no wrong and criticizing him in any way is off-limits, no matter how many people he's insulted, offended, and attacked in the process of making many of those contributions. No user is above WP:AGF or WP:NPA.
• (2) You dismiss the valid concerns and criticisms of dozens of users based entirely on how long they happen to have been editing here (which is actually largely a result of when they randomly happened to hear about Wikipedia, not of how dedicated or valuable they are to the project!), as though someone's opinion is more or less valid based on how many edits they've made (an ad hominem and non sequitur), even going so far as to make unwarranted elitist statements like 'If it were up to me, I'd discount the complaints (and defenses) of everyone here who's got less than 80% of Sam's edit total". Silly me, thinking that we should judge people's arguments based on the merits of the argument, rather than on the prestige of the arguer. :/ The sort of thinking that makes editors who haven't been on Wikipedia for 3 or 4 years second-class Wikipedians with no right to criticize the veterans (or to defend themselves from the veterans' criticisms, according to you) is not only offensive, but frightening. What happened to accountability? Why the double standard?
• (3) You make the completely false claim that this RfC is a "piling-on", dismissing out-of-hand the possibility that every individual user has their own, specific, justifiable reason to have significant concerns with Sam Spade's conduct. 30 users supporting an RfC should be treated no different than if those 30 users had individually filed separate RfCs over the same issue and person. Unless you have some specific reasons to dispute the motives of any of the users who signed onto this RfC, dismissing the valid opinion of dozens of valuable, dedicated, intelligent Wikipedia editors out-of-hand is a horrible failure to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• (4) You characterize this RfC as consisting of people who "go out of their way to gang up on someone and kick them when they are down", when this analysis has, in fact, very little in common with the reality of the situation. On the contrary: although a few editors have been less patient than they should have in dealing with Sam here (though understandably so, considering how long this has been going on), a large number of editors have been extraordinarily reasonable and patient in trying to discuss the matter with Sam in a civil and reasonable way, yet have failed again and again in their appeals and compromises. I strongly recommend that you acquaint yourself better with the discussion and evidence presented in this RfC and in its Talk page before casting aspersions on dozens of Wikipedia editors just because they dared to criticize the Infallible Sam Spade. :/ As I have clearly stated above, this RfC is a discussion and an intervention, not a witchhunt, and the repeated attempts of Sam's defenders to dismiss valid complaints as "mob justice", "piling-on", "hoodlums", and "users who have behaved unethically", to name only a few (yet never with a single iota of evidence to justify such mass personal attacks), are completely unacceptable substitutes for actually addressing and responding to the arguments and evidence provided by Sam's critics. If you feel that Sam is being mistreated here, provide evidence of mistreatment; if you feel that the criticism of him is unwarranted, explain how any of it is invalid, providing reasoning, counter-arguments, and contrary evidence; if you feel that any of his critics are just "piling on" (for some unexplained reason) and don't have a serious, substantial case against Sam, then state who these users are and why you feel this way, so they have a chance to defend themselves and explain why, specifically, they've voted or argued as they did. But you have done none of these things thus far; you have only cast unjustified aspersions and made attacks against almost everyone who has voted for this RfC, have argued that Sam is somehow "beyond" criticism just because of his contributions, and have failed to address a single specific aspect of Sam, or anyone else's, behavior, relying on rhetoric and appeals to pity and emotion (e.g. "Sam has earned the right to be treated better") with no apparent basis in fact. An unsatisfactory defense, to say the least.
• (5) You make vague, insinuated accusations that we have mistreated Sam in some horrible, unspecified way, stating "Whether you like him personally or not, Sam has earned the right to be treated better than this". Please specify exactly what statements on the RfC have been things Sam has "earned the right to be treated better than". Though I agree with you that some users on both sides could have been more calm and civil in their criticism, if anything, I can find more reasons to criticize Sam's conduct on this RfC than anyone else's: you quote his initial statement on this RfC, yet strangely fail to note his uncivil and unsubstantiated insinuations and personal-attack dismissals, such as "Those who are interested are encouraged to look into the above editors rather closely, but I likely won't have the time or interest to do the usual dirt digging for months, if ever.", and alluding to "hoodlums", a "hydra" of "trouble makers", and biased, apathetic, "wrongheaded" decision-makers, all in response to the valid criticisms and examples at the top of the page. This selective reading of Sam's comments you've made seems both distorted and misleading; I'm not here to vilify him, but I'm also not here to idolize and worship him with rose-tinted glasses, as you seem to think we ought do. Rather, I prefer to both appreciate his virtues and criticize his failings; the two are not mutually exclusive, contrary to extremist analysis on both sides. Everyone makes mistakes; Sam Spade is not a terrible person just because he's had trouble assuming good faith and treating other editors with respect and civility in many cases, and he's indisputably an invaluable editor. But when those same mistakes recur again and again and again, they should not be ignored (nor should they be exaggerated, making Sam out to be some sort of cartoonish villain); they should be acknowledged and dealt with. And that seems to be what's finally happening, with an ArbCom case at last being initiated. Although I personally am far from being one of Sam's harsher credits, and hope to continue to work with him in the future regardless of the outcome of the upcoming case, the sheer quantity of substantiated criticisms, many of a very similar nature, from a wide swathe of unrelated users, demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt how necessary it is for this dispute to be dealt with, not brushed under the rug as it has in the past. -Silence 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Silence's excellent summary of this view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I also support Silences summary of this view. Also I find it strange that Meercat writes "The magnitude of the piling-on here turns this from what is should be - an attempt at improving communication among editors, to what RfC's seem to too often become - a pigpile of gripes". I would say that this has never been a pile on. Infinity actively encouraged editors to present ONLY a few examples. This may look like a pile on but it could have been a lot worse. That says a lot right there.

The tone here has never been as described by Meercat and many have attempted to reach out to Sam but have either been rebuffed or ignored (the latter is a common tactic from Sam). Sam only started even showing a willingness to discuss the issues when Bishonen started to discuss the possability of writing an RFAr. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat replies

My point is that there needs to be a better system of cooperating than simply hounding somone to leave the wiki, especially a long-time contributor like SamSpade. Disagree if you want, but I see this as piling-on. Personally, I don't see a tremendous amount wrong with Sam that some sincere rapport could not heal. Look at thewolfstar. Why is it Maggie will talk to me and not to some others? I suggest it's because not everyone is actually trying their best to hear, listen and appreciate. I think the same is true here with Sam. I think there's a lot more resentment of Sam's editing perspective than is admitted to and I think much of the anger about his editing methods is actually misplaced anger about his edit contents. That's just how I see it and I am not saying anyone here in particular is bad, just that the net effect is overkill. Merecat 23:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The whole point of the discussion above was to resolve this without having to "hound someone to leave the wiki". Everyone here (so far as I can see) has basically said that they'd like Sam to continue editing. This is a "sincere rapport", contrary to what you have said, and it so far hasn't solved all the issues we have with Sam -- unfortunately. Please stop making unevidenced and incorrect insinuations about people's motives and attitudes, such as "not everyone is actually trying their best to hear, listen and appreciate". Saying such things is not helpful or constructive, and will only create further tension. Assume Good Faith. Cadr 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call my comments and feelings "nonsense". This was a request for comment and I gave my comment. It shouldn't turn into an argument. I don't have any problems with you and hopefully, you don't have any problems with me. Also, if I am not mistaken, I did not address the topic of the complainers "motives and attitudes" and I don't think you should say that I have. Personally, I think you are being way too harsh with me, so I'd like to drop this with you, if you don't mind. Merecat 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You did address the topic of the complainers "motives and attitudes":

I suggest it's because not everyone is actually trying their best to hear, listen and appreciate. I think the same is true here with Sam. I think there's a lot more resentment of Sam's editing perspective than is admitted to and I think much of the anger about his editing methods is actually misplaced anger about his edit contents.

What is that if it isn't addressing motives and attitudes? I don't think I'm being too harsh with you, you're making unfounded accusations against quite a large number of editors who are making a good-faith attempt to resolve this dispute. It is not your defence of Sam that's the problem, it's your unfounded criticism of other editors here. Cadr 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadr, regarding "What is that if it isn't addressing motives and attitudes?": If you are actually asking me to answer this, I'll answer. But if you are just telling me something, then we should drop it. Merecat 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Question marks typically (though not always) do denote questions, and comments like the above are usually intended to be answered, not to be simple statements of fact. -Silence 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Silence, but I am going to wait for Cadr's answer. Merecat 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My issues with your first comment in this section are basically the same as the ones identified by Silence below. I should have used less inflamatory language, and I apologise for calling your comment nonsense. Regarding my question, it was basically rhetorical -- it just seemed to me that you were making assumptions about people's motives and attitudes which (though I'm sure they were sincerely held) you did not back up with reference to any specific editors or comments. That makes it hard for people to respond in a constructive manner, because there is no specific charge to answer (and yet we have still been collectively accused of doing something wrong, and feel the need to say something in response). As for whether us two should "drop it", I think we may as well, given that Silence has said what I wanted to say at greater length and much more tactfully below. There is no point in having two parallel discussions. Cadr 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whether negative reactions to Sam's personal opinions have unduly influenced the RfC, and other issues Re:Merecat

• I don't feel that Merecat's above comment is "nonsense"; indeed, I find it much more constructive and valuable than his first comment to this RfC, which was more inflammatory towards the RfC's endorsers and less specific in its criticism. Merecat's concern that we are in part judging Sam Spade based on his opinions and points of view, and not on his attitudes and behavior, is understandable; Sam does indeed have an unconventional, controversial view (by Wikipedia editor standards, at least) on a number of issues, and I'd be a liar to say that that hasn't had any influence, though obviously that is not in any way the meat of this dispute, and, in fact, I think you'd find that some of the editors here (myself included) value Sam as an editor all the more for his unconventional views, as it helps shed unusual lights and views on articles that might otherwise receive too homogeneous of a treatment from Wikipedia's userbase. If anything, I'd say that the main factor his specific beliefs have had in faciliating controversy and disputes, and thus this RfC, is not through the beliefs themselves (in other words, if a 100% cordial, friendly, respectful, good-faith-assuming user came around with Sam's views, he'd generate infinitely less tension, conflict, and ill will than Sam has, despite his personal views). Rather, having such unusual beliefs, combined with being an extremely active, proliferate editor (neither of which are bad things in themselves; indeed, both are to varying extents positive), helped make his consistently poor conduct and attitudes much more readily obvious than it otherwise would have been. In other words, if there was a user who has just as much trouble assuming good faith, being civil, respecting NPOV, discussing actions rather than getting into revert-wars, etc. as Sam, but who had fairly mainstream, ordinary views on most issues, he would warrant an RfC and ArbCom decision just as much as Sam does, but it would take much longer for it to become obvious that the user is consistently violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because he would get into fewer disagreements with other editors. That's a simple issue of practicality, not of bias: if an uncivil user says "George W. Bush is a president!", noone will dispute his claim, whereas if he says "George W. Bush is an alien!", a discussion will start and his uncivil behavior will be revealed. That doesn't mean that "GWB = president" is a more acceptable statement for an editor to make than "GWB = alien", it just means that more conventional and accepted statements are, by their very nature, less likely to generate discussion and disagreement, and therefore less likely to end up revealing unacceptably abusive behavior patterns. So, your claim is a half-truth: yes, if we are to be honest with ourselves, Sam's unusual opinions have implicitly factored in to this RfC, but they're factored in not because they themselves (or even the conflicts and discussions surrounding them) are bad, but because they tend to bring to light certain unacceptable behavior patterns much more readily. For a metaphor, imagine that a criminal had a characteristic calling card that he left at his crimes, and this calling card helped give him away and amass evidence much more readily than would have otherwise been a case; if this criminal was prosecuted, the calling cards would have been significant (in a behind-the-scenes way) because they helped connect the dots much more quickly than would have otherwise been the case, but that doesn't mean that the calling cards are themselves a crime. Likewise, it is not a remotely bad thing to have unusual viewpoints on Wikipedia; we should cherish such people rather than trying to make them conform to every aspect of the mass groupthink (not that I think anyone could ever make Sam conform to anything he didn't want to :)). But what's bad is when Sam attacks other users, gets into unnecessary edit-wars when discussion would do, dismisses other editors' valid opinions with fallacious and unjustified insinuations, and overall makes the editing environment much more hostile, factionalized, aggressive, and pointed than it otherwise would be. And he does such regularly enough, and has done such over a long enough span of time, that clearly something needs to be done about it. That, itself, has nothing to do with what specific viewpoints and beliefs he has on various issues; it has to do with behavior and attitude. (However, if you disagree and still feel that we are being unduly influenced by Sam's personal opinions, do feel free to cite examples of us judging his views and beliefs, not his behavior and attitudes, anywhere in this RfC.)
• "Disagree if you want, but I see this as piling-on." - I disagree. :) Something does not magically become a "piling-on" just because there are a large number of users who endorse a specific thing; by that logic, whenever an RfA gets more than 20 votes it should be considered a "piling-on" and dismissed out of hand, with no evidence to support such a claim. The only thing the large numbers of supporters for various parts of the RfC indicates is that a lot of people agree that there is a problem here. Nothing more, nothing less.
• "Personally, I don't see a tremendous amount wrong with Sam that some sincere rapport could not heal." - I don't see a "tremendous amount wrong" with Sam, either; I see a relatively simple (though significant and destructive) problem that he could almost certainly deal with if he truly and honestly tried his best to. The problem is that he is unwilling to, and has been unwilling to for years. If change is to occur, he has to truly want it to occur. As long as he prefers a battleground to a collaboration, it will remain a battleground for him. As long as he treats all criticism as vicious, unwarranted attacks and all dissent as nefarious schemes by his enemies, it will be impossible to make progress. It's a simple change to make, but a vitally important one, and his decision on whether or not to make it.
• "I suggest it's because not everyone is actually trying their best to hear, listen and appreciate." - That may be the case for some people, but I don't think it's the case with most. Are there any specific comments you are referring to here? It's hard to judge the accuracy of your assessment (that people aren't "trying their best to hear, listen and appreciate") when it's not based in any actual evidence... If it's just a "feeling" of yours, are you so certain that you aren't just projecting feelings and biases that aren't really necessarily there, based on your own personal expectations to that effect?
• "just that the net effect is overkill. " - Again, could you explain why it's overkill? I think the RfC overall has been relatively toned-down and small in scope, with a few exceptions. For example, rather than posting dozens or hundreds of pages of evidence of Sam's misconduct, only a half-dozen or so were, with the intent that we not drown the proceedings with excessive citing. It's not like anyone in these proceedings has called for Sam's head on a pike; I don't think anyone's even asked that he be blocked or banned thus far! Although I'm not saying everyone's conduct has been peachy here, overall, I'd say that there's been remarkably few "string 'im up!" comment and remarkably many "Sam, let's work together to solve this problem" comments, especially considering how clearly frustrated many users are after years of experiencing Sam's character attacks and stubborn lack of change. -Silence 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, Silence. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thewolfstar's outside view

This comment is actually scary Sam responded not by addressing my precise concerns with the way the article was written, but by denouncing the ideology socialism. I didn't think this was appropriate or progressive at all. -- WGee
Are we all forced to be progressive now? I would do some serious soul searching here, folks. The mass hypnotism is astounding in it's implications. thewolfstar 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I was not speaking about progressivism in the political sense; I simply meant that we should all be concerned with making progress in the article. What's so scary about that? -- WGee 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar is blocked, it appears permanently (although open to review) so she cannot respond here. Just an FYI. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking viewpoints based on WHO is expressing that viewpoint seems so very very wrong. (I am a not saying I have a better way forward.) WAS 4.250 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying, WAS, please clarify? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking based on who is talking has reached the point of reverting corrections to spelling. I'm just saying blindly reverting based on who is talking is not optimum. But I can understand reverting 1000 edits by a person without looking closely at every single one when the first 100 are all vandalisms. WAS 4.250 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)