Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 13 April 2006

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)

Outside view of Justforasecond

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 13:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Implying that the people who have brought this RfC to light is behaving "unethically" is an unsupportable comment. Similarly, implying we are acting in a conspiracy is also an unsupportable comment. You choose to ignore all the evidence we have presented as indication of Sam's behaviour, yet you don't hesistate to attack us without any evidence to support it. -- infinity0 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• You say "users who have behaved unethically here" and "always congratulated each other on new cats". Before you continue researching this issue in depth, can you show us some examples that you consider are out of the norm? I can say with little doubt that infinity0 and I have never edited together in the past. Your comments are as bad as Sam's comments above with respect to "dirt digging". David D. (Talk) 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• You stated "The issue of whether "God" is an appropriate term in English for a supreme being..." This makes no sense. No one involved in this Rfc, or the God article, has ever debated that point so far as I know, and that includes Sam. Please clarify - what are you talking about? KillerChihuahua 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

Abusing Sam?

Sam, I'd like to know why you think my comments in this RfC are abusive? Does this mean you are ignoring the suggestions and points being discussed? David D. (Talk) 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"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)

You guys upset me

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)

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)

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)

6 to 2 constitutes consensus. FeloniousMonk 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Human. The tally was something like 9-5. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Correction: it is currently 10 for version 2. As far as I can tell, the other several thousand registered editors on Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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

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)

Um, that's called consensus, something you're accused of ignoring. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Majority =/= concensus. Consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Sam Spade 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't justify you assuming you, the minority, is NPOV. -- infinity0 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

you assume, the minority (you), is NPOV

Sam one of the issues in this RfC is the title of this section. The other issue is that you walk away from conversations leaving them hanging and never really address the legitimate questions. For example, you ignored my question above as to why you consider my reply in the RfC as abuse. This habit of yours was described by Bishonen in the following words: "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." Source

With respect to your mantra "Majority =/= concensus. Consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"." That's fine but the question you do not address is the title of this section, as asked by Infinity0 above, but i did not see you address the question. I asked a similar question on the human talk page and you similarly did not address the question there. Below is what you walked away from on the human talk page.

It's almost impossible to reach a consensus if one party in the discussion consistently walks away from the hard questions. I reiterate what i wrote above. Your job as an editor is not to tell the majority that they are wrong but to persuade that majority that you are right. This is what consensus building is all about. It's hard work and you are not doing the leg work. Without the leg work the articles you edit will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If one can't argue why one is right, then their claim that they are right amounts to nothing. -- infinity0 17:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a by-passer, but i found this quote a few weeks ago. Sounds relevant:

"MPOV is characterized not by a belief that your own personal viewpoints are correct and thus must be represented in Misplaced Pages — although those who hold a MPOV very often also believe this — but rather by the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral." m:MPOV (categories:Community | Patterns | Humor)

That's all. --Quiddity 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done it too

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Indeed. In fact, Tony Sidaway opened an Rfc on himself not too long ago, because he wanted comments and other views on his actions. He sought input from the community. KillerChihuahua 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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).

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)

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)

arbitration

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages editor, having made his first edit on 07:04, 30 September 2004. Thus, this RfC can make no pretense to being a complete overview of his nearly 13 months of activity on Misplaced Pages. 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)

172's deleted comment

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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) 172 | Talk 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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).

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

Either way he got blocked for it User_talk:Cognition#Block. The wikipedia power structure makes me sad. Sam Spade 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Actually most of the comments on the is project page are improper. Their is no allowance for comments between signatures, or replies to my response. read the captions below each section header. For example:

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)

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)

I certainly don't ignore it, when was the last time you've seen me edit any of the articles in question? You've successfully chased me off, huzzah for mob justice (so much for NPOV, Consensus, and encyclopedic standards...) Sam Spade 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)