Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 4 April 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 04:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

• Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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), he reverts without discussion (or very little of it) and fails to stay cool and makes some (many) uncivil comments. Some of his reversions have deceptive edit summaries.

Description

{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" , and Sam Spade replies to the effect of "my version is the consensus version" or "read the talk page" or even simply "restore" . 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.)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

Socialism

1. - reverts the WHOLE day's work; decides to work on his own version
2. - deceptive edit summary. - 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. - reverts to his own version, but removes the POV-because notice
4. - reverts to his version after three editors have AGREED to the other version on the talk page and removes the POV tag. - User:Webmaster@sgovd.org restores the consensus version, pointing out Sam Spade's deceptive edit summary

Template:Socialism

1. On Template:Socialism, - 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))

Human

His ownership of articles such as human leads to distinctly dubious edits. Below are several examples of his reverts to previous reversions without discussion. In some of these reverts perfectly good corrections to grammar are lost too. All through this period there was a lot of discussion on the talk page trying to reach a consensus. The talk was productive with editors from all spectrums of opinion pitching in. Sams edits were very counter productive to the discussion. This is an on going problem, being polite on the talk page is not enough, this passive aggressive editing just causes friction between editors. It is not productive. Here are two examples of the type of exchanges/reverts that have occurred on the human article that are casuing problems.

1. 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. 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).

God

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)

• 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)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:3RR
2. WP:CIVIL
3. WP:CON
4. WP:DICK
5. WP:ES
6. (WP:NPOV) - not so much the issue as failing to discuss the immense POV of his version.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. I made extensive attempts to try to get him to discuss things.
2. User:WGee asks Sam Spade to explain reversions
3. User:Webmaster@sgovd.org notes that "User:Sam Spade seems not to be interested in user discussions nor in a consensus"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. infinity0 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. KillerChihuahua 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. David D. (Talk) 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. JoshuaZ 18:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Cyde Weys 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Cadr 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

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)

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

Reply to Sam

Sam, the implication of what you write above is that you are not in the wrong 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)

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

1. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. JoshuaZ 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Danny Lilithborne 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. -- infinity0 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

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.

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

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

Discussion

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.