Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sam Spade

message: 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)

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Outside view of Justforasecond

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Abusing Sam?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 6 to 2 constitutes consensus. FeloniousMonk 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at Talk:Human. The tally was something like 9-5.  — goethean ॐ 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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 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)

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

text: Um, that's called consensus, something you're accused of ignoring. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority =/= concensus. Consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Sam Spade 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, that doesn't justify you assuming you, the minority, is NPOV. -- infinity0 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, don't you get it? Only Sam is NPOV here, and the rest of us are "POV artists." 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  You guys upset me 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  172 | Talk 23:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitration

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 172's deleted comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sam Spade gives it a try

message: 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)
replies: text: **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)
thread_title: Formal vs. informal

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

text: The request for arbitration has already been posted. Cadr 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Agree with Silence, this is getting silly; somebody start the RfAR, please?

message: *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)
replies: text: I agree with your comments, Silence. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether negative reactions to Sam's personal opinions have unduly influenced the RfC, and other issues Re:Merecat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying, WAS, please clarify? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  thewolfstar's outside view