Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Sam Spade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chip's opening comments

I requested mediation because I have had repeated confrontations with Sam Spade on several pages, especially Fascism, Fascism and religion, and Political correctness.

Here is the text of the letter I posted on the English Wikipedia List WikiEn-l

I really need a mediator to deal with the editing disagreements between me and Sam Spade. I requested mediation some time ago.

Here is Sam Spade's latest:

"First your spurious accusation of plagiarism, and now you accuse me of vandalism. This, combined with dozens of other ugly statements on your part seem to be leading up to a rather damining arbcom case. I suggest you chill the fuck out. Sam Spade 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

After I pointed out an obvious case of plagiarism by him on the Political Correctness page he seemed to start following me around Wiki provoking confrontations. His most recent effort was pasting a entire old contested section back into the Fascism article--complete with duplicate sentences and much duplicated material. When this was pointed out, he suggested it was the job of the other editors to find the duplicate material and delete it. This is vandalism.

Please help. I know some people value Sam Spade as an editor, but my experience is that when he does not get his way, he becomes a bully, promoting a very POV right-wing bias. I am on the political left, but do try to edit here on Wiki in an NPOV way. A centrist mediator would be best to divide out what is political disagreement and what is personal antagonism.

So I am resorting to this list in an effort to find an unbiased mediator.

I think the problem is that Sam loses his temper and makes mistakes and acts in an aggressive manner, and then he tries to mask this conduct. I confess that I have lost my temper with Sam during more than one incident. I hope that a mediator can monitor the pages I have listed to help us both behave in a more consructive way. If this is not the proper format, please point me to instructions. Thanks.--Cberlet 22:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

My assessment of Chip Berlet is best encapsuled in his article. He is a POV warrior from alt journalism, and brings many skills and detriments to the wiki accordingly. Because I have contradicted his far-leftist Politically correct POV one time too many, he has assumed bad faith on my part, made a number of false accusations and personal attacks, and generally behaved as one would expect from a journalist of his caliber.

What is the answer? He should know that false accusations are not to be tolerated, and that NPOV involves inclusion of all verifiable POV's, and a neutral narrative. There are other wikis for other POV's, the anarchopedia comes to mind. We'd be lucky to have a person like Chip, assuming he is dedicated to our M:Foundation issues. If not, having someone so well versed in writing editorials, rather than editing an encyclopedia... Frankly it is difficult, particularly given his cheering squad of fellow partisans.

[edit] footnote

As a footnote, I would mention that while I have largely backed off from editing the articles in question:

Cberlet (talk · contribs) largely has not.

[edit] See also

[edit] Response by Cberlet

I think Sam Spade's negative characterization of my work amply demonstrates his bias against both my research and writing, as well as my politics. In addition to the biographical information collected by other Wiki editors at Chip Berlet, I have written for a number of print encyclopedias, and helped edit one:

2003. “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopedia of Religion and War. Gabriel Palner Fernandez, ed. (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.
2002. “Surveillance Abuse.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. David Levinson, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2001. “Apocalypse,” “Nativism,” “Devil and Satan,” and “The Illuminati.” Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge
2000. “Apocalypse,” “Conspiracism,” “Demagogues,” “Demonization,” “Militia Movements,” “Populism,” “Survivalism,” Totalitarianism,” and “Year 2000.” Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements. Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge. (associate editor)

My article on Neo-Fascism, "Terminology: Use with Caution," is collected in the definitive work Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003.

Recent scholarly work includes:

(2004) "Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism." Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.
(2004). "Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements." In Abby Ferber, ed, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York: Routledge.

I co-wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe last week.

I realize none of this matters as much as how I edit Wiki articles. But I do think this short list illustrates Sam Spade's bias against me regarding my "caliber."--Cberlet 03:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Sam Spade has not edited the Religious Right page, as he listed below, but we were involved in confrontations on the Christian Right page. Sam Spade recently edited the Fascism page in a very disruptive manner. Sam Spade edited the Political Correctness page on 16 Jun 2005 when he deleted text I had inserted. On the Neofascism and religion page Sam Spade attempted to insert his POV about Fascism not being right wing, and was rebuffed by the majority of editors; and even so, I went into the text and rewrote it to add nuance that favored his position, so I have no idea why he is complaining about my editing of that page. On all of these pages I have actively sought compromise, and frequently inserted material that was NPOV versions of material with which I disagree when other editors made a strong case for inclusion.--Cberlet 14:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Sam Spade

Thanks for the note about the religious right vrs. christian right (those two pages should probably be merged, or at least clarified that most people refer to the christian right as the religious right). As far as who has been doing what, I invite investigation into our edit histories. I have investigated both of us, and I can say without equivication that Chip is focused on promoting his POV, wheras a review of my contributions or my edit history shows that I edit a diverse array of articles, and not from any one POV. Alot of this foolishness w Chip stems from him thinking I am right wing. While on the one hand, it would be perfectly fine for me to edit if I were the right wing klansman he and certain vandals seem to think I am... [1], [2]... its pretty obvious that I'm not. my personal politics may be hard to clasify, but right wing? I think not. I simply happen to believe in NPOV, and edit articles accordingly, with as little regard for my personal views as I am able. Sam Spade 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Cberlet

I am not disputing that Sam Spade is industrious, nor that many people find his edits useful. What I am saying is that he loses his temper when I challenge him to provide some sort of reputable cite for his claims that I regard as right wing. He often starts a revert war, or posts some claim from a highly POV rhetorical right-wing author or website as if that is the equivalent of the material I have posted from scholarly books or serious published authors.

He also makes sweeping statements based on his own opinions as if that was sufficient evidence to challenge serious research. An example is posted above with the statement: "most people refer to the christian right as the religious right." This is simply not true, it is much more complicated. The current pages reflect that complexity, and merging them would probably lose the complex explanation. But even if they were merged, the claim would still be problematic.

All I am asking is that Sam Spade engages in aggressive and bullying activity again, I can return to this page and seek mediation for a specific page.--Cberlet 28 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Sam Spade

Much of that is a repetition of your previous statements.

I demand that you formally apologize for your spurious plagiarism and vandalism accusations, and resolve to either cease editing articles where you obviously possess a vested POV, or resolve not to engage in revert wars or talk page slander in order to enforce your political agenda.

I can see why you would assume such things would make me angry, but in reality they only make me sad, concerned for the future of the wikipedia. User:Sam Spade 28 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Chip Berlet

I am happy to assume the incident of plagiarism[3] was not intentional, but it was so obvious that even on one of Sam Spade's allies pages there is a note that "Bishonen has also coached Sam on how to attribute more correctly,"[4] to which Sam Spade responded that he did believe he had done anything wrong. This refusal to face the mistake is part of the problem. The tone and content of the above post is representative of Sam Spade when he is losing his ability to proceed in a courteous manner.--Cberlet 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

[edit] Is there to be a mediator?

Who is mediating, and where might they be? Is anyone still aware of this pages existence? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am very happy with the positive result of this mediation. Fewer conflicts. Thanks.--Cberlet 12:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. Now Sam Spade has joined Rangerdude and Nobs in attacking me on a series of pages. I propose combining this mediation with the one proposed at this page I am walking away from Wiki for a week to let matters cool down.--Cberlet 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And now were before the ArbCom... funny that... Another case solved by the MedCom...

Sam Spade 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)