Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC).

• Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

When he is in a dispute and outnumbered by consensus (Socialism, Human, God, Anarchism, Political correctness), he reverts without discussion (or very little of it) and fails to stay cool and makes many uncivil comments. A great number of his reversions have deceptive edit summaries, often presented in the guise of "restoring" something that was egregiously removed, when in fact what he is restoring is an edit of his own that failed to gain traction (usually due to an extremist POV).

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Sam Spade keeps reverting Socialism#Nazism back to his version without discussion on the talk page (or very little of it) even though he is the only person who disagrees with the consensus version. No other editor (so far) has raised an objection to that version; consequently, the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag is only up there to appease Sam.

I have provided extensive criticisms of Sam's version; he has provided no thorough defence or it, nor any thorough criticisms of the consensus version.

(It seems that Sam Spade has done this "revert w/o discussion thing" on several articles, including God and Human. Looking through the histories of both articles, I see the same pattern - a few users revert Sam Spade's edits, saying "this is the consensus version, quit edit warring" [1] [2] [3] [4], and Sam Spade replies to the effect of "my version is the consensus version" [5] or "read the talk page" [6] [7] or even simply "restore" [8] [9]. I do not know the details, but on the surface these separate incidents seem remarkably similar. This may be indicative of problems with Sam Spade's attitude towards disputes, especially when consensus is against him.)

The same situation has cropped up on the Nazi mysticism page; Sam reverts without acceptance of anyone else's input. The content is utterly unverifiable.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [10] - reverts the WHOLE day's work; decides to work on his own version [11]
2. [12] - deceptive edit summary. [13] - talk page at that time shows no objections to suggested version (the extended discourse between User:Cadr and User:TDC is a private debate unrelated to the article contents).
3. [14] - reverts to his own version, but removes the POV-because notice [15]
4. [16] - reverts to his version after three editors have AGREED to the other version on the talk page [17] and removes the POV tag. [18] - User:Webmaster@sgovd.org restores the consensus version, pointing out Sam Spade's deceptive edit summary

I can't sort through the whole thing but the edit summary on the first point above says "beginning of complex edit" and the next summary is "reinserted some edits". I guess these could be just complex misdirection, but it looks as if the point is to reorg not revert.

The second says "revert, join talk page discussion please, objections have been thoroughly articulated". There seems to have been a lot of discussion on the talk page, prior to the edit summary. My guess would be these are the objections he's speaking of?

The third Sam Spade adds "Islamic Socialism", "National Socialism" and "Fascism" to a Socialism template. The first two seem more than reasonable, not sure about the third. Removing the first two seems just as antagonistic as continuing to reinsert third. Justforasecond 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is the correct place to be discussing the evidence, but more importantly, it seems that you have based your view of the dispute entirely on an extremely cursory glance at a few incidental areas. For example, you find "Islamic Socialism" and "National Socialism" completely unobjectionable because they have the word "Socialism" in there, but this extremely clearly demonstrates that you haven't bothered to look at the pages themselves: National Socialism is nothing but a dab page (and probably a backhanded reference to nazism), and Islamic socialism is a stub referring to an extremely disputed, and relatively trivial, political buzzword, not to an attested, substantiated historical movement or distinct ideology; its article doesn't even have a single source! So not only the topics, but the articles themselves, seem unsatisfactory for a template dedicated to such a broad topic as socialism. And even you admit that linking to fascism is way out of line (practically slanderous, and certainly unjustifiable from a socio-economic perspective), and off-topic, to link to in that context. Although I have not been at all involved in the dispute regarding this template, and have never edited a socialism-related article, I strongly recommend that you delve into the matter a bit deeper before making any judgments about who was in the wrong; superficial analysis won't help anyone. -Silence 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, those are only a sample and have very little explanation. If you look closely, Sam "reorganises" the article back to his version over several edits. This is apparent if you compare the versions about 20 apart. Here is a more detailed evidence list. -- infinity0 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. On Template:Socialism sidebar, [19] - claims something without approval or proof, but demands that sources be required for its removal (also, de:Sozialismus doesn't claim something similar)

(And various others; I will provide more evidence if needed. -- infinity0 18:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

His "ownership" of articles such as human leads to distinctly dubious and/or biased edits. Sam frequently attempts to restore items that have clearly not gained consensus, in fact these item are clearly opposed by consensus, is fond of noting how he brought the article to FA status.

Samk has frequently reverted to previous versions without discussion. In making some of these reverts, perfectly good corrections to grammar are lost as well. All through this period there was much discussion on the talk page, as many editors struggled to reach a consensus. The talk was productive with editors from all spectrums of opinion pitching in. Sam's edits were highly counter-productive to the discussion, often causing the discussion to revert back to where they had been days earlier. This is an on-going problem. Being "polite" (depending upon one's definition) on the talk page is not enough: the passive aggressive editing cotinues to cause friction between editors, and is in no manner productive.

Here are examples of the type of exchanges/reverts that have occurred on the human article that are casuing problems.

1. Sam made the following edit on 10:32, 21 March 2006 (remove offensive intro)

   Response: (Reverting Sam's disruptive continuation of pushing a microscopically minority view, while continuing to refuse to discuss with others on Talk)

   Sam's follow up comment to the response was ({{NPOV}}, read talk page before lying) and adding the NPOV tag. The response to him adding the tag was (remove offensive, badly out-of-date, poorly-organized, largely uninformative, and widely disfavored (only 1 user, Sam Spade, supports it, and at least 7 users oppose it) intro; other fixes).

2. Sam made the following edit on 12:45, 23 March 2006 (new compromise intro)

   Response: (Sam, this is the consensus version, quit it.)

   Sam's follow up comment to the response was (good grief, read consensus, will ya?) and reverting again. The response to him reverting again was (change intro; appears only one editor supporting it).

3. Sam made the following three edits on "13:01, 24 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore spirit)", "12:54, 24 March 2006 Sam Spade (capitalisation, wl)", "12:52, 24 March 2006 Sam Spade (new compromise intro)" [20], [21], [22]

   This was reverted here, [23].

   To which Sam responded by reverting to his original "resoration", [24]

4. Then Sam made the following edit a bit later " 16:04, 26 March 2006 Sam Spade (→Society and culture - spirit) " [25].

   This was reverted here "20:51, 26 March 2006 Jossi (restoring Spirituality and religion section / rm Spirit section)" [26]

   To which Sam responded, "06:47, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (revgert, stuffed down at the bottom is as compromising as its gonna get)" [27]

   Which was reverted (again) here at "07:34, 27 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (So in other words you're going to push your POV of "spirit" against "Reliion and spirtualism" going aginst NPOV undue weight and consensus?)" [28]

   Which Sam then reverted here at, "12:23, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore spirit section) " [29]

   Which was reverted here at, "12:55, 27 March 2006 Tasc m (please, stop edit war. refer to the talk page is there anything to discuss) ", [30]

   A day later, "05:04, 28 March 2006 Sam Spade (→Spirituality and religion - restore full section (while respecting Dab's placement compromise)) " [31]

   And again reverted, "06:18, 28 March 2006 Ashenai (reverted to Dbachmann's version, with no prejudice for or against his tripartite classification. I'm neutral on that issue.) " [32]

5. Next came this, with a deceptive edit summary, "11:38, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore compromise version) " [33]

   Which was reverted here at, "11:42, 29 March 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Sam Spade (talk) to last version by KillerChihuahua) " [34]

   To which Sam responded by again tossing up an NPOV tag, "11:45, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade ({{NPOV}}) " [35]

• At this time, and throughout this pattern of reversion, a discussion followed by a vote resulted in three versions: 1, 2, and 4 being considered. Sam was the only supporter of Version 4. Two editors supported version 1, and 10 editors supported version 2. Sam's reversions were to version 4, supported only by him (of 13 editors expressing a position.)[36]

Sam has inserted an American-centric, questionably sourced statement into the intro of God multiple times, although this has been discussed several times on talk Talk:God#.22most.22_people.3F, Talk:God#.22vast_majority.22, Talk:God#monotheism.2C_majority.2C_and_the_value_of_citations, and archive. He states he is "removing bias" although universally the opinion of other editors is that he is actually restoring bias by inserting his view as "fact" Talk:God#Intro_bias. In all these discussions, editors have attempted discussion with the result of Sam ignoring it, or simply stating his version is the right one (not a verbatim quote.) Diffs of his reversions to his preferred version to come. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Diff links to come - pls be patient, thanks.

A partial list of Sam's reversions to his (unsupported and biased) intro, and reversions of this by various editors to restore consensus version:

• 17:08, 15 March 2006 Sam Spade (God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the vast majority ...
• 17:25, 15 March 2006 Bikeable (rv "vast majority" addition by Sam Spade. we have been through this before on the Talk page; get consensus there before adding it back)
• 10:22, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (intro)
• 10:25, 17 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (rv deliberate flouting of consensus, thoroughly discussed on talk page, with 100% support)
• 11:18, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv, read the talk page)
• 16:19, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (replacing dead cite w 2 working ones)
• 17:35, 17 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (Returning to consensus version per talk. The US is not the world.)
• 19:50, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (don't remove cited information)
• 19:55, 17 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv to Consensus version.)
• 19:58, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (Do not delete cited information. Do not claim false consensus.)
• 20:02, 17 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv, Sam you are the only editor who supports that version.)
• 20:22, 18 March 2006 Sam Spade (God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority
• 10:58, 19 March 2006 Sam Spade (there is no consensus, join the talk page discussion) :note: Misleading edit summary: this is in spite of the fact that Sam had not participated in talk page discussion since at least 6 editors agreed his intro was POV and inaccurate.
• 11:48, 19 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (Sam, this American-centric POV pushing which insults over half the inhabitants of this planet needs to stop...
• 16:06, 21 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore intro)
• 16:50, 21 March 2006 Bikeable (rv Sam Spade's intro to last by 205.213.111.51)
• 17:06, 22 March 2006 Sam Spade (intro)
• 17:13, 22 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (You do not have support for your personal preferred intro, Sam. It is biased.)
• 09:38, 23 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv vandal) :note: Misleading edit summary
• 14:03, 23 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv misleading edit that put the correct picture back but also made Sam's prefered modifications. Sam please don)

more to come, along with diffs, again thanks for your patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Nazi mysticism

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:3RR
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:CIVIL
4. WP:CON
5. WP:DICK (not a policy or guideline)
6. WP:DR
7. WP:ES
8. WP:NPA
9. WP:NPOV (not so much the issue as failing to discuss the immense POV of his version)
10. WP:OWN

(provide diffs and links)

1. I made extensive attempts to try to get him to discuss things. [37] [38] [39]
2. User:WGee asks Sam Spade to explain reversions [40]
3. User:Webmaster@sgovd.org notes that "User:Sam Spade seems not to be interested in user discussions nor in a consensus" [41]
4. David D. tried to address some of these issues with Sam on the Human talk page. He did not respond further and continued to revert to a non consensus version of the introduction.
5. User:Hgilbert tried to discuss changes and pointed out Wiki documentation policy; Sam refused to consider any changes and said he'd document the claims at a later date and/or used internet sources (not published material) for documentation. Sam Spade reverts all changes. See Talk:Nazi mysticism.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. infinity0 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. David D. (Talk) 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. JoshuaZ 18:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cyde Weys 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. •Jim62sch• 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. WGee 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. El_C 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. I haven't interacted with him on other articles, but his behavior at Human has been poor. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Pjacobi 12:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Cadr 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Avedomni 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. 172 | Talk 10:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. -Colin Kimbrell 19:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ig0774 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. As we know from past experience, there is a tendency for those with strong religious convictions to assume that where policy and consensus conflicts with their convictions, it is their convictions which must necessarily prevail. Sam goes further: he appears to refuse outright to accept that any view other than his own, on any subject, has sufficient validity even to warrant civil debate. His edits, summaries and Talk comments amount to "this is right because I know it to be so, therefore you are wrong". Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The wikipedia is a playground for hoodlums. Sometimes they mean well, sometimes they don't, but for those who insist on article quality the system is broken. In my experience the best way to handle such problems is to walk away from them. Unfortunately that is against my nature.

Still, I don't have much time or interest for wiki-lawyering and politics anymore, in my experience everytime I get a trouble maker banned, three more pop up to take his place. Its like a hydra, and given the apathy and downright wrongheadedness of those w the final say, I see the bias here growing, rather than dissipating over time. WP:POLICY is great, but its not how things work.

I have a busy month coming up (I'll be travelling europe and the states, as well as studying for and taking several midterms and a final) so I won't be able to give this much attention. 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. Sam Spade 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Justforasecond 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Merecat 14:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. thewolfstar 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, the implication of what you write above is that you are not in the wrong when participating in revert wars while serious and constructive discussion is progressing. This has nothing to do with wiki-lawyering and politics but a lot to do with the disruption of consensus building. I think you need to reconsider your approach to consensus building. I would suggest not making major edits to an article while discussions on the talk page are in progress. Antagonistic edit summaries do not help either.

Initially, I think many editors do not see these problems since you behave quite well on the talk pages and appear to be playing the game. Even using emoticons to try to break the ice ;) However, at the same time you are often the most disruptive of editors on the actual article. This may fool people for a short while but it gets very tedious and frustrating for other editors who have seen this pattern of passive aggressive editing time and time again.

Above you write: "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. "

I take offense to the insinuation that those of us who have written this RfC have skeletons in the closet. This is a pathetic tactic to try and discredit users who have a very legitimate case against your disruptive editing. I stand by all the edits I have made here on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 19:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. David D. (Talk)
2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. JoshuaZ 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Danny Lilithborne 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. infinity0 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. FeloniousMonk 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Avedomni 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cyde Weys 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cadr 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Bishonen | Speak, speak, I charge thee, speak! 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
13. BCorr|Брайен 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. WGee 00:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Giano | talk 09:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. 172 | Talk 09:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. -Colin Kimbrell 19:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Ig0774 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. El_C 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Calling for dirt-digging instead of replying to objections is virtually the definition of ad hominem arguments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Batmanand. Seems not to care about WP:AFG; regardless of the content dispute, to call for "dirt-digging" is simply not on. 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. User:Hgilbert
25. Just zis Guy you know? 09:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Calton | Talk 12:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Exploding Boy 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I haven't followed the articles in question, but Sam's insinuation of skeletons in the closet is in my experience characteristic of his debating technique, and his own text above seems to acknowledge it — "the usual dirt-digging". I've never seen him respond to criticism or contradiction by turning a critical eye on himself, by acknowledging a fault (though he's highly capable of being gracious when his edits are not criticized or contradicted!), or by changing his course. I've never seen him not impugn the motives of a critic. That sounds terrible, and I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I certainly don't watch him or anything, especially not since I gave up trying to edit those articles which he owns and guards. (Ah, sweet relief.) 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. --Bishonen

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Bishonen | Speak, speak, I charge thee, speak! 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
2. Cadr 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. My experience with him is limited; but this is in the general direction of what I have witnessed. -- infinity0 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sean Black ^(talk) 22:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cyde Weys 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Avedomni 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Highly accurate, at least in my experience. I've been accused of trying to push POVs I didn't even know existed even for simple statements of fact; not a very good job of assuming good faith. Many of his insinuations amount to mild personal attacks, and few are directly relevant or accurate. -Silence 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. JoshuaZ 00:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. David D. (Talk) 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Hard to disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. FeloniousMonk 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Calton | Talk 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. The use of ad hominem (which is not an insult, but a change of topic from the issue under debate to the person doing the debating) is what bothers me most, and I beg pardon for broadening a bit in my endorsement. What I have seen from Sam is a personalizing of ideas. When a contrary idea is presented, the person is at odds with Sam, in his description. When the debate of ideas begins, it's "POV warriors" and people with dirt in their backgrounds. This is a fundamental issue. Wikipedia is about information that the world agrees upon, and not even about the truth. It is not a missionary platform of any sort, an arbiter of truth, nor a revelation; it is a repetition of the most-agreed upon information and, sometimes, most agreeable recent research into a subject (brand new research explains where Layamon was written should be in, if it's published and is taking the world by storm). Facts are not people, and we as editors are neither lessened nor improved by knowing that we have gotten the "real truth" into an article, because our articles are not original research, not our opinions, not our living truths, not our visions, and therefore we are reporting on the known world and the knowledge of the world. I'm not sure that personalizing information can lead to anything constructive in composition, but I am quite sure that it can only lead to trouble when reverting and editing existing articles. (Again, apologies for running long instead of just signing or doing another view.) Geogre 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. bikeable (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. I haven't worked with him for very long, but both of these views describe his general pattern of behaviour very well. He often argues ad hominem and debates vitriolically in such a way that precludes productive consesus building. Sam also tends to ignore, push aside, or respond unconstructively to specific concerns with the article in order to advance his views on the general subject matter. For instance, when I first commented on the socialism article, 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 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    

21. Giano | talk 09:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Finally someone has the guts to say this after nearly three years. 172 | Talk 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. -Colin Kimbrell 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Ig0774 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. El_C 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Exactly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Batmanand. As above. Lack of assuming good faith is particularly troubling. 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Exploding Boy 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Bishonen echoes my own feelings. But we can still have cookies here, right? ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked into this case in great detail, but recognize a couple of the names as users who have behaved unethically here, in particular these users pile on in debates about content they have zero interest in. It never takes long to track down the connections between users, they've always congratulated each other on new cats or whatever somewhere on a user talk page. Wikipedia should not be a popularity contest and users should not partake in that sort of behavior. The rules here are simple but too often the pilers on ignore them. I'm sure a few of those signing onto this have genuine issues with Sam Spade, but the pilers on should depart (as I will). The issue of whether "God" is an appropriate term in English for a supreme being is ridiculous, I've been around the world and in every country -- including Iran -- when speaking in English and referring to a single supreme being, people use "God". No, there is no survey to prove this and there never will be because no one cares enough to pay to interview 4 billion people about what word they use to describe God. Justforasecond 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. HK 14:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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) [42] 172 | Talk 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   My experience with 172 is good, so I want to be careful here. However, it think it rude of 172 to rebut here. It's clearly an attempt to get the last word and it's clearly against the rules. 172's comment should be on the talk page, not here. Merecat 19:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think 172's coment is especially inappropriate; it could probably be placed better on the Talk page, I agree, but it does no significant harm here. If you think he should move his comment, by all means say so and explain why, but calling him "rude" seems crossing the line a tad; from his comment, he seems only to have been trying to help and to provide some context for the above message. On the "rudeness" scale, 172's comment-addition was a faux pas at worst. Additionally, I strongly recommend that you read the entire Talk page for this RfC, and perhaps respond to a few posts there, as soon as possible; many of the issues you have addressed below have been discussed in-depth there, and justforasecond's comment in particular has been thoroughly and convincingly refuted as tangential, unsubstantiated nonsense there. But, as you said, the proper place for discussion like this is the Talk page; for your own comment, and my response, even more so than for 172's initial side-note. :) -Silence 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Cognition 01:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. thewolfstar 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Merecat 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC

I'm embarrassed to be putting myself forward with a second statements like this, but things have happened since the RFC was brought, ten days ago, especially on the talk page, and nobody else seems inclined to summarize them here (people may be too tactful to do that). It emerged quickly in this RFC that many are frustrated by Sam Spade's habit of assuming bad faith and his contempt for the views of others. I wrote about that problem in a statement above, but SS himself defined it much more effectively in calling the certifiers of the RFC "hoodlums" and a trouble-making hydra ("everytime I get a trouble maker banned, three more pop up to take his place...it's like a hydra"), and in regretting that he didn't have time to do "the usual dirt-digging" (extraordinary frankness!) on these editors. Then he withdrew in dudgeon after an unfortunate incident involving my talkpage, but returned yesterday — see his recent comments under the last heading, "172's deleted comment", on the talk page — as pure of blame and as persecuted by the hoodlums as ever. This is the depressing part. I hate to see people trying so hard, leaning over backwords to appeal to SS and then see the contempt and contumely and injured victimhood with which he slaps their hands away. Look for instance at Infinity0's, David D's, JoshuaZ's, and Silence's posts on the talkpage, and Sam's responses! The RFC and all the work that has gone into it appears, frustratingly, to have achieved NOTHING. Sam still hasn't acknowledged a molecule of good will in others, he hasn't yielded an Ångström, he hasn't shown the most minimal willingness to edit collaboratively. I for one have become quite disillusioned about the power of a mere RFC to affect his editing practices. So how about that Request for arbitration? I do appreciate how much better and more wiki and more humane it would be have a fruitful discussion with Sam, here in this venue, but, well, that's not happening. Some practical, tangible ArbCom remedy like say a one-revert injunction would be something, it seems to me, and would improve the articles in question. Wikipedia is not therapy. You guys can't keep on indefinitely appealing to Sam Spade.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
2. Cyde Weys

   David D. (Talk) 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) see below for endorsement of alternative approach[reply]

3. Cadr 22:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good luck to Sam in getting "trouble-makers" like Cyde and myself banned. We are the Rouge Admin Posse, we have mops and we're not afraid to use them. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. There is a gut-wrenching disconnect between SS's talk (the beleaguered champion of NPOV) and his walk (ie, edit-warring over the lead of God to say God is believed in by the vast majority, with references that don't say that, 'cept in 'merica, maybe). It doesn't surprise me then that the RFC approach isn't working. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. It's time to bring this RfC to the arbcom. This has been going on for several years. We've all dealt with enough already. 172 | Talk 06:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Two years is enough, and I'd rather it be ArbCom that denies the case than that no one ask. Geogre 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'm not sanguine about the result – inexplicably he has supporters and friends in high places – but it needs to be tried anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alternative approaches have been tried many times in the past with Sam and all have failed. He's shown himself to be a refractory, chronic offender. Sam's refusal to accept responsibility for his actions here leaves us little choice. Sam's offensive behavior and disruption of articles have gone on far too long. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Signing here, due to the comments below Silence's sections. JoshuaZ 14:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Please! Hgilbert 13:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. The time has come. •Jim62sch• 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Given this edit from sam on the talk page, i agree the time has come. David D. (Talk) 16:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Exploding Boy 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. -- infinity0 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. WGee 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that ArbCom intervention is at all necessary at this juncture; resorting to such a measure would, at the very least, be premature, and it could even cause more harm than good. Although we've been having trouble establishing communication between Sam Spade and some of his critics over the last 10 days of this RfC, I feel that we're now finally starting to open up a dialogue between the two parties on this RfC's Talk page, and a lot of progress is beginning to be made. Remember to assume the same good faith of Sam which we are asking Sam Spade to assume of us; he is beginning, at the least, to show willingness to change his behavior in certain respects, and I have a great deal of confidence that such a valuable, dedicated, and intelligent Wikipedia editor is capable of reforming some of his more abrasive debate techniques (the "dirt-digging" mentioned above) and explain his views on certain controversial issues in a more layed-back and less ad hominem (though no less insistent) manner.

Obviously, even assuming good faith has its limits; if problems continue to regularly occur in the future, some administrative action may have to be taken. But for now, and for the foreseeable future, I think that discussion may suffice to lessen tensions on both sides, if both Sam and his critics are willing to discuss the matter civilly. A very clear message has been sent with the sheer number of users who endorsed various aspects of this RfC; Sam has, in fact, heard us, and I think we should really give him a chance to demonstrate an openness to criticism and dissent, and a willingness to keep his comments from becoming too personal or inflammatory, in future conflicts (without him giving up his stubborn dedication to improving Wikipedia, of course! :)).

In other words, before we hastily escalate this disagreement further, let's settle down and see how the next few conflicts Sam becomes involved in go first. There's no rush; I'm sure ArbCom will still be there a few weeks or months down the line. :) And I really want to see if an old dog can learn new tricks. -Silence 00:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

# Silence Sam's new comments indicate that he has little interest in further discussion or negotiation.

# Tentatively endorse. JoshuaZ 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Given the comments below, I cannot in good conscience support this summary.[reply]

#I think everyone should give Silence a chance before we give up. If Silence fails then we know we tried everything. (Sam ... please!!!) WAS 4.250 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#David D. (Talk) 04:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Sam insists on treating this like a soap opera. This contempt is worrying.[reply]

Comment Let's see, 1 previous Sam Spade RFC (plus a long history of participation at RFC's predecessor Wikipedia:Conflicts between users under his previous username JackLynch) and 1 recent arbitration ruling and he's still at it. How many chances should Sam be given? Here we are talking about the same issues again 9 months after his first RFC. In December Sam was admonished by the arbcomm for not properly citing of sources and making personal attacks in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others case. Here we are 4 months after that in April, dealing with pretty much the same issues from Sam again. Exactly how many chances do you think the chronically disruptive should have before we should seek resolution? The real irony here is that Sam in his previous incarnation here as User:JackLynch once signed on as a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club[43] FeloniousMonk 05:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On April 12th, Sam sent me the following message on my talk page. This was in response to my addressing a message to him to 'Sam' (or Jack?)':

What is the issue regarding my name? Please call me Sam, or Spade, or Sam Spade, without the parentheses (""'s). Anything else is provocative and potentially offensive or threatening.

Other than the fact that he seems not to know (or want to admit) that he has used both identities here, I find the response aggressive and unwarranted. I have been having conversations with him about the Nazi mysticism page over the last week and a half, and the issues are unchanged; he refuses to acknowledge that suggestions that Nazis had moon bases and that Hitler escaped and joined up with a race of Antarctic dinosaurs are anything but mainstream. (I'm not kidding, and that's just the first two paragraphs of this article.) I would suggest that some further step is needed. Hgilbert 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had numerous lengthy conflicts with Sam of a nature similar to that being dealt with here (though not on any of these specific articles), which ended only when Sam stopped editing articles I watch and I stopped following his talk page and contributions closely. I came here today because an edit summary (another user posting on Sam's talk page) referring to an RFC caught my eye; I haven't had any contact with Sam for months.

Unfortunately, it seems that Sam's behaviour hasn't changed one little bit in that time. In my dealings with Sam I have found him pedantic, rigid, officious, intractable, uncooperative, obstinate, and rude. He seems to be constantly involved in some sort of dispute, often related to his POV-pushing or to his insistence on editing against consensus, sometimes when he is the lone dissenter.

I fully support everything that the other users have to say about Sam, and I suspect that if this RFC were more widely advertised, we'd have a hell of a lot more users in agreement with the meat of the accusations.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. JoshuaZ 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am toning this down as it is rather accusatory itself thewolfstar 21:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Please see this, on the socialism talk page.[reply]
Discussion of User:Sam Spade
http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Talk:Socialism#Discussion_of_User:Sam_Spade..a whole long nasty comment ensues about Sam Spade and it is even asserted by infinity0 that what Sam Spade is doing is not healthy for himself. Cut the crap. Please stop this silly "I am a psychiatrist or social worker and am here to help you thing". ~ I'm sure Sam Spade doesn't need Infinity0 or any of you analyzing him. Next JoshuaZ arrives on the scene. Note, this is the socialism talk page, and he starts talking about the God talk page. •Jim62sch• jumps in says "Sam appears to be cooperating now, but he has caused significant disruption over the course of the past month or so. "Sam has insisted on inserting POV info on spirituality over and over and over. Now this guy has got to be kidding. The slant and POV in some of these articles is astounding. See Democratic Party (United States), and when a dissenting editor enters the scene, rather than listen to what he is saying, the throng starts shouting POV POV. Geogre says, "Wikipedia is about information that the world agrees upon, and not even about the truth. It is not a missionary platform of any sort, an arbiter of truth, nor a revelation; it is a repetition of the most-agreed upon information." No, actually Wikipedia is about information that the community at Wikipedia agrees on, which tends to be left-wingish, exclusive and forbidding to any who may either hold a different point of view or just plain wants to get fact into an article. The accuracy of the most agreed upon information is clearly at stake here, when the information is only allowed to be agreed upon by a slanted majority. How hard is this to understand? What I see here is an editor who has been singled out, grabbed by the mob, and strung up on a pole to be picked at and despised. A plate of cookies is even offered so that we can all sit around and nibble something sweet while we do this. Kind of like when people used to bring the kids to see a hanging, isn't it? Please stop these rfcs. They're horrible. thewolfstar 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 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[reply]
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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Merecat 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Merecat 15:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. thewolfstar 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.