Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Case Opened on 00:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Bishonen (talk · contribs)
• Sam Spade (talk · contribs)
• Infinity0 (talk · contribs)
• Mel Etitis (talk · contribs)
• Cadr (talk · contribs)
• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hgilbert (talk · contribs)
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)

Summary: Sam Spade edit wars on many articles, fails to respect consensus, is uncivil, and accuses everyone who disagrees with him of bad faith and shabby agendas. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade

Statement by User:Bishonen

Sam Spade wages POV war designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, as detailed by numerous editors in the "Statement of the dispute" in the RfC mentioned. I have not myself edited any of "Sam's" pages in a long time — I frankly can't stand it — but I remember what it was like. Depressingly, the RfC shows that the experience is still exactly the same. I think it's urgent for the sake of the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog finally does learn new tricks, as editors are still being stressed out and giving up on "Sam's" pages, the way I was and did. In an Outside view on the RfC that was signed by 29 people, I wrote specifically about Sam's imputations of bad faith and the lack of human respect he shows for those who disagree with him: "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." His attitudes and debating techniques can also be studied in his name-calling and self-righteous attacks in the RfC itself. Bishonen | talk 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Statement by User:Infinity0

I am currently involved with an arbitration case of my own, so I regret that I will not be able to contribute much to this RfAr. However, I endorse and agree with what Bishonen has written, which also seems to be the general consensus of the people signing Sam Spade's RfC. I will provide evidence of disputed behaviour when needed. -- infinity0 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cadr

I have not been directly involved with a page Sam has been editing for a few months, but in my 3 years on Wikipedia I've been involved in edit wars with him on at least two occasions (mostly relating to articles on Augusto Pinochet and Nazism/Socialism). I have looked carefully at the evidence presented in the recent RfC, and I endorse the two statements above. Sam could potentially be a very valuable contributor, but his attitude towards those who disagree with him has made it impossible for others to work with him constructively in many cases. He has made noises about calming down a little, but he has not really admitted to having done anything wrong, and given his past performance, there is little reason to believe that his behaviour will change in the long run, IMO. Cadr 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mel Etitis

Like Bishonen, much experience with Sam Spade has led me, as far as possible, to avoid articles which he has pretty well taken over, such as Nazi mysticism, and those which he attempts to dominate, such as Human. The recent RfC demontsrated pretty conclusively, first, that his behaviour has remained the same since I first encountered him in 2004 (and discussion at the time, as well as earlier RfCs, indicated that he alrady had a long history of similar behaviour), and secondly, that he refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As he made clear there, and as he's made clear in his editing elsewhere, his view is that he's right, those who disagree with him are wrong (and are acting in bad faith, are "hoodlums", need to have the dirt on them dug, etc.), and that's all that needs to be said. When other editors disagree with him, he (often aggressively) cites the need for consensus (e.g., [1], [2], [3]); when consensus is clearly against him, he ignores it, and even explicitly sets himself against it ("The majority is usually wrong", as he puts it). While "consensus" doesn't merely equal "majority", all consensus is majority opinion.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the problem that he poses is genuine and serious. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Hgilbert

I have also found that Sam takes over the pages he is interested in, seeking to single-handedly determine the content and simply reverting any changes made. The resulting domination of a single, minority point of view in articles such as Nazi mysticism is overwhelmingly obvious. All attempts to negotiate such issues on talk pages (both article talk pages and his and my user talk page) have been fruitless. Hgilbert 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Spade

If this case is accepted it would have to be punitive in nature, as I immediately ceased the behavior discussed in the RfC upon its creation. The drastic reduction in my editing since then should be another hint that I am in no way misusing my position as volunteer on this project, and have responded correctly to both complaint and consensus. For these reasons, and concerns as to the good faith effort of my accusers to communicate, compromise and resolve conflict in regards to the RfC and the issues brought up in it, I assert that an ArbCom case is hasty and unwarranted at this juncture.

Aditionally I am far too busy for giving this proper (or much of any) attention for the foreseeable future, and therefore request an advocate, and an extremely slow process. I am not currently on my usual continent, and when I return home I will be busy with mid-terms and family commitments.

From my perception this is a referendum on if I want to remain active as a wikipedian, and that is what you will be helping to decide. If you side in my favor I cannot guarantee my continued involvement, but if some sort of demotion or restriction in my status is applied I will want you to delete my account.

Sam Spade 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I concur with statements made by other parties concerning Sam Spade's edit warring, methodology, and ownership. Specifically, Bishonen's statement and Mel Etitis' statement seem to summarize the situation well. Unfortunately, I believe Sam Spade ceased his behavior because there was an Rfc, not because the Rfc led him to view his disruptive ownership and dogged persistance in viewing only his opinion as the "right" one any differently. The only "hint" I am taking from his "drastic reduction in editing" is that he is temporarily suspending that activity while there is attention focused on him. This may sound harsh, but it is based on watching Sam's editing habits and reading his statements, particularly during his Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ed Poor

From almost my first encounter with Sam Spade (who went by the name of JackLynch until Feb 2004) I have been dismayed by his negative attitude. He is typical of the sort of disruptive user that makes me search for a good excuse to abandon the project altogether.

A particularly vexing example was his refusal to understand my comments about his name change. I'd rather not rehash this incident now, but his characterization of my edits and motivations was so repellent that I finally gave up trying to explain.

Forcing someone to give up goes against my concept of "the wiki way". It should not be a life or death struggle against one's enemies, but more like that Motown song ("It's a game of give and take"). We should be helping each other to make an encyclopedia, not trying to win battles.

Things like page-owning, and wearing down others with persistent reverts or personal attacks, have no place at Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

• Accept. Charles Matthews 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Probation

1) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by tendentious editing and edit warring may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

2) Users are expected to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Passed 7 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) Sam Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has habitually edited controversial articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Third assertion.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and tendentious editing by Sam Spade

2) Sam Spade has engaged in sustained edit warring at a number of articles, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at God, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at Human, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at Socialism.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade assumes bad faith

3) Sam Spade has history of making unwarranted assumptions of bad faith against his detractors. He often engages in ad hominem arguments in discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade and evidence by Bishonen

Passed 7 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sam Spade placed on Probation

1) Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade cautioned

2) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks and admonished to comment on content, not on the contributor. He is reminded that administrators are empowered to block for such policy violations if they disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Sam Spade, using any user name or IP, violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.