Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:42, 7 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: 01:42, 26 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, 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).

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 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)" , ,

   This was reverted here, .

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

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

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

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

   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?)"

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

   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) ",

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

   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.) "

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

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

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

• 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.)

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

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"
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.

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)
6. •Jim62sch• 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Cadr 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Avedomni 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 5 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 ~~~~):

1. Justforasecond 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Sam

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)

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

1. David D. (Talk)
2. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3. JoshuaZ 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Danny Lilithborne 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. infinity0 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. FeloniousMonk 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Avedomni 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Cyde Weys 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
9. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Cadr 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Bishonen | Speak, speak, I charge thee, speak! 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC).
13. BCorr|Брайен 00:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
15. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Bishonen

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).
2. Cadr 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
4. Sean Black 22:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Cyde Weys 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Avedomni 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Cberlet 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
10. JoshuaZ 00:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
11. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
13. David D. (Talk) 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
14. KillerChihuahua 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Hard to disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
16. FeloniousMonk 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Calton | Talk 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Misplaced Pages 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)
19. bikeable (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Justforasecond

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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.