Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop

message: It's difficult to understand what goes on on the workshop page when Sam signs some of his edits, but not most of them. Right now the page contains unsigned brief opinion pieces by Fred Bauder, as representing ArbCom, and by Sam Spade. I can still figure which is which, just about, from contexts and from what I know of Sam's views, but I predict that if this state of affairs continues, the page will become harder and harder to parse. Sam (and any other people not representing ArbCom), could you sign all your entries on the Workshop page, please? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign all entries, please

message: Look, I am a volunteer. If you don't appreciate the work I'm doing here as a community (or official representitives thereof), just say so, and I'll go away. There is no need for a trial. I'm not some sort of wackjob vandal who is interested in violating your rules. I am a person who likes encyclopedias.
It is my opinion that I have done alot of good here in the last few years, but who cares. The point is your starting to really piss me off. I understand that I am adevils advocate, and some people dislike that. They don't like me arguing odd positions, and backing them up with facts. If they are meerly a loud minority, then lets find a way to shut them up and get back to work. If the people who cannot tolerate dissent have the final say, its time to go.
Lets try a list of pro's and cons:
===Wikipedia pro's and cons===
====Pros====
*a free encyclopedia
*nice interface
*lots of nice people
*I like to research, and to help others
*a very diverse information source, containing a wide variety of images and data, across a range of subjects
*A useful first stop resource when researching a subject
*Sometimes the talk page dialogues get really interesting, resulting in stimulating conversation as well as article improvements.
*Cool policies
====Cons====
*stressful
*popularity contest power structure
*Embarassing to cite / be associated with
*people get away w murder if they have the right friends
*Rudeness and harassment are rampant, with little recourse
*Those seen to be in a position of power are disrespectful and incommunicative
*Good users (like User:Optim and other Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) are forced out, while cliques thrive, thus condensing an already polluted atmosphere
*With no competant process of peer review, the wikipedia is not making progress in becomming a reliable book of reference
*"Consensus" among editors (Supermajority) trumps citations and NPOV here, despite policy to the contrary
*The majority of editors on any given controversial page are generally biased in the same direction. When someone tries to edit towards NPOV, they are often attacked and driven off.
*Popularity contest winners (Wikipedia:Admins) ignore all rules, dispensing with threats, indefinite blocks, and wheel waring as the mood suits them. Ordinary users who attempt to obey policy (such as myself) are often criticized and punished.
*A working environment so unpleasent as to surpass any job I have ever quit based on an unpleasent working environment
===Discussion===
Feel free to engage in dialogue. If I decide the cons outweigh the pros, or if you succeed in convincing me to do so, I'll go away. I certainly won't stick around to be punished for volunteering my time. Sam Spade 16:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Choose twenty usernames. Have each username each edit one article each (twenty different articles). Each username edits a maximum of three times a day. Let the username Sam remain dormant for the next year. Or is that too much like me playing devil's advocate? WAS 4.250 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you have been doing some game playing yourself. I don't know how this will come out, but the game playing (edit warring) will stop. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The reasonable request is, as Fred stated, that you stop playing games.  Disagreeing with people about article content is quite acceptable.  The substantive part of the complaints against you is to do with how you respond to such disagreements.  I note that even now, on this page, you are playing games - attempting to manipulate by playing the sole injured party. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: People who don't trust me don't have my respect. People who try to restrict, rather than to enable are clearly not being respectful. If the disrespect is that thorogh, why the hell would someone want to be here? Sam Spade 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the hell am I supposed to discuss matters? 

message: Feel free to engage in dialogue. If I decide the cons outweigh the pros, or if you succeed in convincing me to do so, I'll go away. I certainly won't stick around to be punished for volunteering my time. Sam Spade 16:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Choose twenty usernames. Have each username each edit one article each (twenty different articles). Each username edits a maximum of three times a day. Let the username Sam remain dormant for the next year. Or is that too much like me playing devil's advocate? WAS 4.250 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you have been doing some game playing yourself. I don't know how this will come out, but the game playing (edit warring) will stop. Fred Bauder 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The reasonable request is, as Fred stated, that you stop playing games.  Disagreeing with people about article content is quite acceptable.  The substantive part of the complaints against you is to do with how you respond to such disagreements.  I note that even now, on this page, you are playing games - attempting to manipulate by playing the sole injured party. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Sam, you are not primarily or even secondarily here to disrupt wikipedia and the bulk of your behavior shows you can be quite an asset to Wikipedia when you chose to be. You behave disruptively at times but less so at times when the focus in on your behavior. This shows you know the difference and are capable of the behavior we seek. The APPEARANCE is of someone who gives into temptations when they think they can get away with it. The RESULT is the need to provide EXTERNAL restraints in lieu of SELF restraints. I know this is unpleasant for you. Please don't take the attitude that you will take your ball (your ability to contribute) and go home. Help us work through this, knowing we don't trust your promices anymore. WAS 4.250 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who don't trust me don't have my respect. People who try to restrict, rather than to enable are clearly not being respectful. If the disrespect is that thorogh, why the hell would someone want to be here? Sam Spade 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more discussion