Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from main page

  • This user has repeatedly attacked User:Sam Spade. He has preserved and "protected" a mentioning of Sam Spade as being a "racist" on his page, then deleted my comments regarding it.(vandalism removed Sam Spade)
  • Has declined mediation in regards to this matter w Sam

I did not make this statement, please view the materials. GrazingshipIV 00:41, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Grazingship is a good contributor. I feel he done excellent work on wikipedia. I can vouch for him, although I'd be a hypocite to sam a racist Comrade Nick

Unfortunetly Spade formally Jack Lynch) does have or at least has had racist views, as can be demonstrated on my talk page as he used a racial slur. Spade has also repeatedly defended others who espouse racists views such as Paul Vogel. He also vandalized and trolled my user page on many occasions which one can see from viewing the history. In the lordkeeneth situation Spade was trying to remove something from someone's user page without permission because it involved him.

I will continue to battle racist trolls like Sam Spade as I batteled Vogel to keep wikipedia free from racist POV. In short, I will call a spade a spade. GrazingshipIV 00:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

The racist slur in question is "negro", if anybody is interested. Sam Spade 00:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The following was placed under the ==Outside views== header; I have moved it here as Sam Spade cannot be both a party to the dispute and a user not directly involved in the dispute. Sam: Please make up your mind. —No-One Jones 05:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

begin copied text

  1. If he removed the statement (not the one I made BTW, I don't mind that) and refrained from accusing me of racism, etc.. I would find this matter resolved to my satisfaction. Sam Spade 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

end copied text.

That was my endorsement of danny, not a outside statement of my own. Sam Spade 14:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Also I would like to see the evidence, with diffs, of GrazingshipIV failing to comprehend or respect the NPOV policy. Thank you. —No-One Jones 05:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Read the page, thank you. Sam Spade 14:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: When and in which articles (the only part of Wikipedia to which the policy applies) has GrazingshipIV not understood or obeyed the rules of NPOV? —No-One Jones 16:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Grazingship also accused me of vandalizing his User page with no proof, and has repeatedly refused to retract that statement or to apologize. RickK 05:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Note: No proof or evidence has been presented to back up this claim of Grazingship baselessly accusing RickK. Without proof, this user is smearing Grazingship's name.

from ==Statement of the dispute==, evidence section:

  1. Edits to this page made by the user in question. [i.e. GrazingshipIV]

Which edits did you mean -- he has made several -- and what do they demonstrate? Please clarify. —No-One Jones 07:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink Sam Spade 16:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's constructive. —No-One Jones 16:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I forgot that purely verbal sarcasm isn't apparent in text. What I really meant was: Please demonstrate which edits by GrazingshipIV to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV were made in violation of which policy. Will you do that, please? —No-One Jones 23:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
from main, ==Fourth outside view== section
I'm not familiar enough with GrazingshipIV's entire user history, but if one considers him a troll, he's a friendly troll. Sam Spade is a mean troll plotting against his 'enemies' at every step (e.g., aside from me, there's Danny and John). In contrast, I've never seen GrazingshipIV deliberatively act in a spiteful and vindicate way. If he's pissing someone off, he's just acting rashly at the whim of the moment. From my experiences, it's the passive aggressive trolls (e.g., Lir and his dozens of incarnations, Sam Spade, Veriverily, Cantus, and Jor) you have to watch out for. 172 05:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
No, he's been acting quite irrationally and planning attacks agaainst Sam Spade forq uite sometime. ugen64 16:33, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
I don't have any "enemies" 172, thats silly. Certainly not you (when is the last time we even spoke, much less diagreed?) not Danny (whose assesment above I endorsed, and whom I am attempting to resolve prior misunderstandings w) nor "John" (which john would that be?). If I did have an "enemy" it would be someone like User:Lord Kenneth/User:GrazingshipIV, whose record of edits speaks for itself. Sam Spade 17:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This is yet another example of Sam's inapprorpiate behavior. My edits in quality easily surpass his. As far as the lordken situation, you were previously user Jack Lynch and therefore have a conflict of interest in editing someone else's userpage (especially when that user is involved).

Your personal reputation here is your own business. My "attacks" of you have not created the negative opinion so many have of you. It is unfair to blame me for that. GrazingshipIV 17:13, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

end

Moved here because the second, third, and fourth posts are obviously not endorsements of RickK's statement, and I'm not so sure about the first. 172, could you please clarify whether you're endorsing RickK's view or not? —No-One Jones 17:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

vide supra

  1. I don't know if Sam is racist but he does seem to spend a lot of time picking fights, holding grudges and acting out on them. Much of the problem seems to be that Sam made a comment on GrazingshipIV's talk page which he regrets and would like to disappear and Grazingship refuses to remove Sam's comment from his page. Sam shouldn't be removing material from someone else's talk page. That seems to be a more serious offence than anything Sam's accusing GrazingshipIV of having done. I suggest that both users refrain from commenting on each other's talk pages. However, I have to add that I reject the argument that someone who defends a racist must be a racist himself as a guilt by association fallacy. This is an especially dubious contention given the poor quality of Sam's advocacy on behalf of Vogel, a performance that would have had him disbarred had he actually been a lawyer. AndyL 06:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
    So, if I publish people's addresses on my talk page, noone can remove them but me? ugen64 16:36, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Bumm13 06:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
    I think it should be noted that Grazingship referred to Sam Spade as a "neonazi SOB" on IRC. ugen64 16:32, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
    I think it should be noted that IRC is not Wikipedia. Snowspinner 17:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

end

Contents

What are you doing, Mirv?

The refactoring you are doing here, and the boilerplate etc... have no relation to what is done on other RfC pages. Why have you decided to take control of this page? Are you unilaterally creating a new RfC policy here and now on this page, or what? Where is the precedent for any of this? Sam Spade 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. I believe everything I've done here is backed up by the guidelines on that page. —No-One Jones 17:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I believe none of the refactoring you have done here is backed up by any policy, on that page or elsewhere. There definitely is no precedent. Sam Spade 17:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
In that case feel free to re-refactor the page as necessary; however I ask that you at least keep the standard boilerplate intact. —No-One Jones 17:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
That isn't the standard boilerplate after the two persons have certified their accusations. It has always then been removed. Please review precedent on RfC pages! Sam Spade 17:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Samantic (Semantic) compromise

I guess I would be willing to change white supremacism to white seperatism (which is more accurate). But it will stay until May, if you don't like your comments don't make them Sam. GrazingshipIV 17:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I like my comments. Its yours that are offensive trolling. I no longer have any faith in your intents here.

SamSpade 18:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am trolling my talk page? Well...I guess thats true. I really do not in all honesty care what you think of me. So your "faith" or lack thereof is not relevant to the discussion. Your repeated smears and trolling are on you.

Well if you don't want to compromise you don't want to compromise. GrazingshipIV 18:05, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

What I don't want is to hear any more of your vile lies and slander. I don't find your suggestions to be compromising, but rather manipulative barbs designed to provoke and escalate. Clearly I need to bring up more of your past, before we met. Sam Spade 18:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Clearly you are not winning the argument on RFC, nor should you. You have been trolling here long before I came. Also please note RFC pertains to a single dispute that being your charge of "slander". Look to the rules when in doubt.

Furthermore, using racist language makes you rather vile IMO which has allot to due with this conflict. GrazingshipIV 18:13, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Trolling" is just another form of personal attack, and this is getting progressively more childish. Sam wants the comments removed from Grazingship's talk page. Grazingship wants Sam not to post to his talk page anymore. I don't see any good reason why you two can't both agree to those things. --Michael Snow 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Note: This was first posted to Mike's talk page.

I am of the opinion that if he doesn't respect this one he will not respect others. I also believe in my statement and it really will be taken down in May. But as many people who have casted their votes so far have said, Spade is a troll for the most part. Thus, I deal with him as such and I think giving him what he wants now (appeasement) would do more damage to wikipedia and myself, than holding my ground and riding through the controversey. GrazingshipIV 18:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

This is a boundary that you have imposed unilaterally. It goes contrary to the normal purpose of talk pages, including user talk pages. Sam never agreed to it that I know of. If he agrees to respect the boundary you want, then you have a negotiated solution, and a rule that you can be justified in expecting him to abide by. Then, if he does post to your talk page again, you would be fully justified in restoring the comments, for as long as you want to keep them there. How does that sound? --Michael Snow 18:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of my sense of thea ppropriateness of preserving the comment for all eternity, the task of what to and not to archive on user talk pages is largely left up to the user, and I am not comfortable with any sort of editorial policy on how one ought maintain one's talk page. That is to say, the matter of what stays on there is Graz's to decide. Similarly, this is a Wiki. As long as Sam is not vandalizing the page, he is entitled to post on it. Snowspinner 18:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike, I have heard your comments and find much value in them. I will of course take it into consideration, but I think setting ground rules on a talk page bearing my user name is more than legitimate. Perhaps after this conflict is over the comments can be taken off or time reduced but not under this sort of campaign where accusations are being hurled at me in such a way.

It would be wrong of me to yield to Sam under these conditions so I won't. Also most people who have voted have made the case clear on Sam and his behavior. thank you and I will no longer respond in this talk page. GrazingshipIV 18:37, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV failings?

I repeat my request for specific citations of GrazingshipIV failing to respect NPOV in articles (not Talk: or Wikipedia: pages—the policy does not apply to those). —No-One Jones 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Page certification

The policy for creating a page like this is as follows:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

ugen64 has not posted in recent history to Grazingship's talk page, thus does not fulfill the minimum requirements to certify this page, so far as I can tell. Could someone clear this up? Snowspinner 22:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ugen64 made one post to Grazingship's talk page on the 10th of May; its content was:
Wow, grazingship, just leave him the heck alone. ugen64 00:29, May 10, 2004 (UTC).
I think this was an attempt to resolve the issue, eh? Perhaps Ugen64 should have certified, rather than endorsed, the summary—but that can be fixed. —No-One Jones 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I do not think that he talked with Grazingship, nor do I think that his post particularly invited dialogue. I would say that we are not yet certified. Snowspinner 23:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
You are right on technical grounds; ugen64 did not certify the summary, but rather endorsed it. (That is, his current statement says that he has reviewed the evidence and, as an outside observer, agrees with Sam Spade's version of events—a certification would say that he took an active role in the dispute, that the summary accurately describes that role, and that he agrees that the RfC is necessary.) Whether this was a simple mistake or an accurate statement of his perspective, we shall see. —No-One Jones 00:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Support for Sam's account

Standard practice in petitions, contracts, and other documents which one signs one's name to is that, if the document changes, all supporters must initial the change, or re-sign it. The onus is not on people who sign petitions and statements to make sure the statement has not been altered. In fact, legally, it's fraud to alter it after someone signs it. If you alter a statement that people have signed, you have to reobtain the support for it. Alternatively, you can revert the statement and claim the original support. Either one works. Snowspinner 00:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

This is not a contract, and you are not a judge. Sam Spade 00:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
The basic principle that "Ugen never expressed support for the document his name is listed as supporting" applies. Snowspinner 00:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Agree entirely. It's not a contract; it's just basic honesty. If someone agrees with or confirms a story you tell, you can't tell a significantly-altered version of that story later and add "so-and-so agrees with me; go ask him." You have to make sure that the person in question really agrees with your new version of the story. —No-One Jones 00:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


He seconded the creation of the page early on. If you all had not been so hysterically ruleslawyering on behalf of graz, you would have simply accepted that he helped create the page, and put "second" into the edit summary. But whatever. The concensus here seems to be negativity towards myself, not graz, and your clearly willing to stop at nothing to subvert the intent of this page. I am not particularly optimistic at this juncture. Sam Spade 00:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm interested in preserving the integrity and honesty of the process - one of the intents of this page is to determine who agrees with what. A bait and switch in your statements subverts that intent far more than deleting questionable support does. I'm happy to compromise with a note after ugen's signature that indicates that his support was for an older version, rather than deleting it entirely. Snowspinner 00:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
"your clearly willing to stop at nothing to subvert the intent of this page." How's that? The intent of this page when it was started was—correct me if I'm wrong—to allow people to comment on what Grazingship did on his talk page: claiming you have sympathetic views towards white supremacy, then refusing to remove that statement when asked. You see this as a violation of the policy against personal attacks; Graz does not. Outside opinions and suggestions were and are needed.
I don't see how maintaining a focus on this incident, and ensuring that the rules regarding user conduct RfCs are followed, is "hysterically ruleslawyering on behalf of graz"—could you explain, please? —No-One Jones 20:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Temp Ban

Regarding the earlier dispute (about his behavior on RfA): Is it still ongoing? Have two people tried to resolve it and failed? Graz says that it was resolved amicably through mediation and wonders why it's being brought up now. —No-One Jones 00:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

  • For the record, Graz and I got off to a bad start. We had some misunderstandings. We resolved our disputes maturely and swiftly through mediation (at the end of March 2004), and we have not had any misunderstandings since. Kingturtle 01:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Comment on new charge

moved from main—best to address it on talk

The statement "This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning" is misleading. My understanding is the ban was lifted when support for it dropped below the required level. AndyL 07:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe the temp ban was early in GrazingshipIV's wikilife, when he violated the three revert rule without knowing it was in place, and got banned via a quickpoll. Since the quickpoll process is currently under review, and since it could be a bit easier for a newbie to see a list of editing policies than it is right now, I think the fact that he was briefly tempbanned is unfortunate, but easily put into context such that it is not a big deal. Snowspinner 13:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

False Certification

As is stated by the rules Ugen64 has neither discussed with me or been involved with both Sam's 3rd and 4th statements of dispute.(3.He has declined mediation in regards to this matter with Sam. 4.This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning). Of course, Sam also cannot list point 4 as he too was not invovled in the temp-ban.

Also Spade has repeatedly changed his charges which violates the rules. He is engaging in personal attacks. If he continues this behavior an RFC page will have to be started about him. GrazingshipIV 00:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

There's no rule against changing the summary, so far as I can tell. It's certainly possible that some hypothetical user (let's call him X) might remember unresolved past disputes (call them Y) with the subject of his initial RfC (call him Z).
If User X (and other users), having been previously involved in dispute Y with User:Z, and having tried and failed to resolve it through other means, choose to bring up the subject, then I would see no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC in such a way. Would you?
If, on the other hand, X had not been involved in dispute Y and had not tried to resolve it, and the users who were involved in it resolved everything to their mutual satisfaction, and then gave statements to that effect—then I might have a different opinion. What do you think?—No-One Jones 01:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I would have no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC, however, I think that every issue listed in the summary needs to be certified - you can't certify four issues if you were only involved in one. So if ugen64 has only talked to Graz about one of the charges, ugen can only certify that charge - the other three, I think, would remain uncertified until someone who has brought them up with Graz certifies them. Snowspinner 01:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I unfortunetly have to agree with Snowspinner. Indeed Spade can just strike the new charges. But he will have to at least do that as in mirv's second senario Spade and Ugen64(as X) were not involved in Y, so they cannot claim it as a dispute. GrazingshipIV 01:24, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Statement of the dispute

So the questions seem to be:

  1. is unquestioned—there is evidence of both certifying users trying and failing to resolve it.
  2. has been withdrawn, so never mind.
  3. Is his declining mediation part of the disputed behavior, or evidence for a failed attempt at resolving the dispute? Can it be both? I would say not. There's no rule against refusing mediation.
  4. What was the extent of Sam and ugen's involvement in this particular dispute? Where did they try and fail to resolve it? Was it resolved by other means, or is it still simmering? Can we see the evidence, please?

Answers would be welcome. —No-One Jones 01:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Spade and I both made comments on his talk page, resulting in pushing back the time of reomval (for the former) and simply deleting the comment (for mine). Then, I attemped twice to get him to remove the offending text, as Sam is very willing to back off. However, Grazingship refused, so here we are. cryptfiend64 15:10, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ugen had nothing to do with 3 and so he cannot certify that. Spade and Ugen had nothing to do with 4 so they cannot certify that.

Actually in pertaining to 4 (as Kingturtle has above-Temp Ban) my dispute has been resolved. Also Spade and I were not familiar with each other at the time: we had never communicated nor was Spade directly or indirectly involved in the dispute. The only evidence Spade wants to give is against himself apprently. GrazingshipIV 01:45, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Trolling

moved from user talk:Mirv, because it largely concerns the contents of this RfC page, and the other "haters" may wish to respond to the points raised. All uses of the second person refer to me. —No-One Jones 07:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

When I created the page, I assumed good faith on the part of graz. I thought he legitimately misunderstood me as racist, and was unable to comprehend the NPOV policy, resulting in him thinking I should not be allowed to edit here. Since creating the page I realize beyond any doubt that he is trolling, and it appears you have decided to promote this thru bizarre rules lawyering. I for my part have realized this for what it is, a tar-baby. Once you, and a handful of other haters have stopped taking the focus of this page away from its intended subject (graz), and attempting to use it to provoke me (rules lawyering), perhaps people w a legitimate interest in promoting policy and community (UninvitedCompany, Danny, etc..) will be heard above the din. In short, no. I will not not fool about playing a losing game with your stacked deck whilst the troll dances a hornpipe. As I have said before, my impression of you had been one of a polite and compromising individual intent of producing NPOV content. Kindly go, do that, and stop promoting trolling. Sam [Spade] 05:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that people have been stacking the deck against you. That certainly wasn't my intention, and I don't know if I'm one of the people you think has been. I think this process is foolish. I think Graz and you have both behaved foolishly towards each other. I think that the wisest course of action is for you both to leave each other alone. That said, if Graz were to start an RfC page about you, I would push just as stridently for it being conducted according to the rules. Because if you and Graz are going to insist on wasting people's time requesting comment on your idiotic and childish feud, you should at least waste our time according to the rules. Snowspinner 18:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I have come to a few conclusions about Spade during this process the most important one is that he lacks enough intelligence to be taken seriously in most cases. The last case for instance where he is obviously trying to bait me by using the term tar-baby and continues his campaign trying to present himself as a virtuious victim. He fails to see that most of the people who came here have little to no sympathy for him...because he has no substance to his argument.

And his strategy of working the ref (in this case Mirv) is distrubingly transparent. Trying to complain about bias in order to silence those who have reasonable objections to his foolishness.

Face it Spade. Even people who are not sympathetic to my cause are never going to be sympathetic to yours. You would be better off just taking the page down. If you want to keep up thats fine with me but don't complain everytime people figure out that you have no case. GrazingshipIV 22:21, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

What "cause" is this? Oh, yes, his "white supremacy"? Face it -- the word Negro does not translate into white supremacy. The word Negro has turned into a politically incorrect word, like queer, retarded, etc. -- those words do not contain offensive denotations (many Wikipedians that are homosexual refer to themselves as "queer", for example, and "mentally retarded" is the official and widely-used medical term); they have only been used in offensive connotations. Obviously, when Sam referred to "Negroes", he meant no offense -- as I understand it (through our chats on IRC), that's your main reason for calling him "white supremacist". cryptfiend64 02:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument and is it not relevant to my previous comment. GrazingshipIV 02:27, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Then i'm confused. What is this "cause" you speak of? As according to your words, it's supporting racism and white supremacy, n'est-ce pas? cryptfiend64 15:08, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

My cause is my position as many other wikipedians have seconded under response, I suggest you view it. Either you are failing to see the argument or are just mindlessly advocating for Spade (the latter it seems) and trying to mistate my position. Eitherway, you have made your position rather clear both here and on the project page. Thanks. GrazingshipIV 19:05, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

moved from Vandalism in progress

User:Sam Spade

Is repeatedly deleting comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. GrazingshipIV 00:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

GrazingshipIV

Is repeatedly deleting comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. Sam Spade 00:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This is, of course, nonsense. Sam keeps deleting my statements for some reason. GrazingshipIV


Unilatteral disarmament for the good of the community

I have removed the comment that Spade found offensive for the good of the community. I think the point was been made about his behavior, lets get back to work! GrazingshipIV