Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gatoclass (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 20 April 2006 (→Let's be clear). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

It isn't me who is being "troublesome" here, nor that is dismissing the arguments of others out of hand. Sam Spade 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I went far further than that, I discussed it with her directly (or attempted to) on her talk page. Sam Spade 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Are you capable of thinking outside your box, or are you just planning on ranting at me until we both weary of it? Do you have anything to offer in the way of solutions or actionable critcism, or is this appeal to the people the extent of it? 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

1. Done.
2. Done.
3. Thats alot of second guessing myself. Normally I follow Be Bold, and simply do what seems right. I can agree to consider your suggestion however.

I have a few requests myself (for all of you):

1. Write for the enemy
2. Accept Misplaced Pages:Policy, like NPOV, WP:Consensus, and Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes
3. Read NPOV, and then read it again.

Sam Spade 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Silence says we're making progress

(High time for an ease of editing section break!)

• Settle down, guys. I think we're finally starting to make some progress; at least a dialogue has opened up! However, I don't think JoshuaZ's suggestions are all especially fair; "spending 5 to 10 minutes" thinking something over before responding is a bit extreme in most cases, and often less productive than doing things like asking questions, going back over your past behavior, explaining your motives and actions more clearly if there's been a misunderstanding, etc. "Dropping the matter" also isn't usually the best way to resolve a dispute; if a lot of people disagree with you but you're still sure you're right, then explain your view more clearly, analyze their discussions to make sure you haven't missed anything (and point out if they have), and, above all, don't get into an edit war. Discussion is almost always a good thing, as long as people keep an open mind and keep things civil, but it is true that when a large number of editors disagree with your version of a page, it's usually counterproductive to try to push for that version with continued reverts. Instead, explain to them why you feel that your version is preferable; don't assume that they won't listen when you haven't even tried to tell them what they should hear! If you think that there happen to be too many editors with a certain bias at a talk page to make much progress, then rather than launching unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations at them, try to attract more unbiased editors with an RfC or something. I also think that JoshuaZ's request that Sam ask himself "will this help make the encyclopedia better?" is a bit excessive, and conceivably an unjustified attack; what makes you think that Sam doesn't already think all the time about how to benefit the encyclopedia? Everything I've seen of his behavior makes me think that he's trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia; it's his methods that are often unintentionally destructive and inflammatory; speculating about his motives is fruitless, and would be doing the exact same thing that we're criticizing him for doing.
• So, I have what I feel are some better suggestions for you to consider, since you've very nicely asked us to provide you with specific recommendations. First and foremost of these is:
• Assume good faith. Other editors, even ones whom you disagree with, are your allies, not your enemies. Do not accuse them of deliberately violating policies, of having secret agendas to push radical POVs, of being ignorant of Misplaced Pages's basic policies, or of having ideas that are in any way inherently less worthy of consideration than your own; ideas are to be judged on the merits of the idea itself, not on the merits of the person giving it (surely you're familiar with the ad hominem logical fallacy by now). This is not to say that you can't criticize other users, and you can certainly criticize their ideas, but when you do so you should be able to back it up with specific, relevant evidence (for example, cite a recent example of their clearly misinterpreting a specific line of NPOV policy to show that they don't understand NPOV; don't just assume that they're completely ignorant regarding NPOV because they disagree with you on something!), and you should do it in a civil and non-inflammatory way, designed to inform them and correct a mistake or misunderstanding they've made, not just to discredit them and their perspective (as is usually the case with your "dirt-digging" and insinuations).
• The fact is, most of the experienced editors you're arguing with have already read the relevant policy pages. Not a single one of the cited disagreements you've had has been over whether those policy pages should be followed or not, despite your frequent straw man digressions along the lines of "Unlike my opponent, I believe that NPOV should be followed" (when the disagreement actually concerns a specific interpretation or implementation of policy, not the validity of the policy itself!). The fact is, different users interpret (and implement) different policies in different ways, and the most efficient and inoffensive way to resolve these disagreements is to clearly explain your interpretation and implementation strategy, and then to try to find out where, exactly, the disagreement or misunderstanding lies. Vilifying everyone who disagrees with you on such matters, and dismissing all their comments as demonstrating a complete ignorance of policy (even when they're actually remarkably similar to your interpretation), is completely unacceptable rhetorically-loaded editor-bashing. And, though linking Misplaced Pages newbies to relevant policy pages is a common and accepted practice, regularly linking experienced users to core policy pages and accusing them of being totally unfamiliar with them can constitute a personal attack, especially without any evidence that this is truly the case. More valuable would be quoting specific lines from a policy page, explaining your interpretation of those lines, and explaining exactly how the actions of the user you're arguing with have been inconsistent with that policy (interpretation); the other user can then explain either why he disagrees with your interpretation (which is not at all uncommon; many of Misplaced Pages's policies are complex and nuanced, and most have exceptions written into them somewhere, including the obnoxious catch-all page WP:IAR), or why he feels that his actions are consistent with your interpretation, but have been misunderstood or misrepresented. Either way, once the exact source of the disagreement has been isolated, it becomes much easier to work out a proper solution.
• In any interactive, consensus-driven endeavor, there will necessarily be numerous issues on which compromise is vital (even when you're certain that your version is 100% good and their version is 100% bad), and you should stop assuming that your version is always the neutral, unbiased "compromise" version and everyone else's is the biased, POV-pushing, policy-violating one. If you support one version and 50 users support another after a lengthy dicussion on the matter, odds are, considering that those 50 users are all intelligent, competent individuals in their own right who are no better or worse than you (despite being what you claim is a "mob"), that the version the 50 users support is preferable, and even a "compromise" version between the one with 50 supporters and the one with 1 supporter may not be necessary or beneficial. This is not to say that the majority is always right (far from it!); but, purely as a matter of basic statistics, the majority is usually right (more people = more views and experiences and thoughts).
• But what's more important is that you realize that discussion and listening to others' perspectives is vital even when you come into a discussion already sure that you're right and they're wrong (and hopefully you're never completely sure that you're right, as that closes your mind to too many potentially valid possibilities; personally, I'm never 100% certain of anything, even if I'm close to it on a few matters), and that it's equally vital to not try to push your version through force (e.g. repeated reverts while a productive discussion is still ongoing) and inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. "your versions are all POVed and mine isn't; go read NPOV and then re-read it, you agenda-pushing hoodlums!"), but rather through reasoned discussion and consensus-building. Assuming good faith, as WP:AGF points out, is "a fundamental principle on any wiki"; you must be more willing to assume much more good faith on the part of your fellow editors in the future, or these disputes will continue and become even more inflamed and needlessly divisive over time. If you must treat Misplaced Pages as a battleground, then at least attack the idea, not the user. -Silence 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats largely sensible. I don't agree with your characterization of my position or of the demographics involved and their importance, but I will admit that WP:AGF is a very difficult policy to follow, and that if it were followed by all parties involved, we would not be here now. So given that I generally agree with the spirit of your request, what next? Sam Spade 23:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Next, the hard part: putting the principle into practice. As you say, it's a difficult policy to follow; I've certainly failed to assume good faith at several key points in the past. So, just see how it goes in the coming weeks—and particularly see how you handle disputes, since you've said that for now you're trying to say out of contentious areas, but what you need in the long run is practice dealing with disagreement and outrageous claims (and there certainly are some!) tactfully, not just practice avoiding them altogether; they're inevitable. If you're having trouble assuming good faith in a certain case, I recommend asking other (preferably uninvolved) users for advice on whether you are justified in doubting a user's intentions or motivations in a certain case (I'll gladly lend my advice in any dispute you're having trouble with, for example, both/either on the issue itself and/or on whether the best routes have always been taken), and if other users who have no reason to deceive you recommend not being so quick to doubt the other user's good faith, strongly consider re-assessing the situation and working hard to tone down the conflict.

Beyond that, the only immediately beneficial thing I could see you doing in response to this RfC would be apologizing and clearly admitting your past failure to assume good faith in some cases. Although I'm sure that you still feel that most of your past actions have been justified, such a consession would go a very long way towards diffusing the concerns of a large number of your detractors. One of the biggest threats to a collaborative project is a user who can't own up to his mistakes, make amends, and change his behavior in accordance with the new information available; a lot of the users here are probably reacting so strongly to your behavior largely because they're worried that you have a very difficult, or even impossible, time in doing this. If you could show them very clearly that you aren't unwilling to listen and respond to criticism in a constructive way, and to show (but not tell :)) that you're the bigger man by not responding with hostility even though some of the comments on this RfC have been quite harsh indeed, I bet you could turn even some of your harshest critics into powerful allies for the future. If only for the purposes of reassuring your fellow editors that you are a lot more sensible and welcoming of critical feedback than some of them take you to be, I've found that apologizing for errors in judgment is almost as important as recognizing those errors in the first place!

However, if you don't feel comfortable at this point conceding that much, that's OK as well; much more important is the task of working to assume better faith in future conflicts. The latter could turn some enemies into friends and diffuse hostile conflicts into peaceful discussions, but the former will help prevent the creation of many potential future enemies and battles. Even when you're clearly in the right and they're clearly in the wrong (in your own analysis, at least), it always pays to assume good faith and remain civil and courteous. (Also, don't be offended by the fact that you probably already know most of this. I'm not assuming that you're an idiot just because you've had trouble in the past with assuming good faith in many situations; I'm confident that you, and many of the other editors involved in this RfC, including myself, can continue to grow as editors and societal beings over time. Perhaps that's because I sometimes assume too much good faith. :)) -Silence 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If Sam doesn't agree with Silence's characterization of his position, given that it's pretty sympathetic, I think it's fair to say that we haven't made any progress at all. Cadr 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we are done here: ON May 1, 2006 OR before that date anytime Silence says he gives up OR Sam and Silence agree on objectively verifyable behavior (ie somebody is agreed on to make the subjective calls) for Sam for a period of one year. Whatever the outcome (for example Sam agrees to something and a majority don't think that's good enough); it will be better for arbcom to have the data that results from this attempt than for arbcom to not have the data that results from this attempt. WAS 4.250 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the next step is arbcom if no agreement is made or an agreement is broken. Therefore maybe the agreement should specify exactly how fully the agreement must be broken to invoke arbcom. For example, the agreement could mimick the wording of an actual arbcom decision with penalties including blocks. We have plenty of editors here with blocking ability who can be counted on to eagerly enforce any such agreement. (The person making the subjective calls should be known to be neutral, but his decision could then be enforced by anyone with blocking abilities.) Basically, I'm visualizing Sam agreeing to an arbcom like agreement hammered out with Sam as far as agreed on penalties for breaking the agreement. What else it might contain is between Silence and Sam. Naturally, no one other than Sam and Silence have to agree to whatever they come up with. This is simply a last ditch effort by the community prior to an arbcom, and if Sam prefers an arbcom he can just say so and save time and effort. WAS 4.250 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How is an "arbcom like agreement" better than an arbcom agreement?

But, WAS, making the kinds of agreements you suggest is exactly what the community (along with Jimbo) got itself an ArbCom for! The ArbCom is the means that the community's has come up with for making such last ditch efforts. You speak as if there's something inherently undesirable about a real RFAR, something that must be avoided via your suggested mimicry RFAR. How is "an arbcom like agreement" better than an actual arbcom agreement? It's obviously worse in some ways: introducing the extra level would bring more bureaucracy and more process; in other words, it would raise the likelihood of this already time-consuming effort getting lost in the sands, as contributors clock up yet another discussion round out of their editing time (how many unwritten articles has this RFC eaten so far?) to argue about the procedures for such a mock, or extra, or dress-rehearsal RFAR. What for? Silence is nice and all, and I have the greatest respect for what he's trying to do, but is he that much better at this hammering-out kind of thing than the real ArbCom? It's what they do; they've had a lot of practice. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

If a sincere effort has been made to deal with Sam's differences of opinions and his boldness in helping Misplaced Pages in ways most find unhelpful; then I have yet to see it. I am not saying it hasn't been done, but I have not seen it and I think Silence and Sam should be given until May 1 to find out if arbcom is needed or not. Arbcom is not to be used instead of trying to work it out. Let 'em try. Why give Sam the excuse no one sincerely tried? Let Silence try and if it fails we will have consensus on the fact that Arbcom is needed. WAS 4.250 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been trying... for years. Most of us just decided to forget about articles on his watchlist, as it is too tedious to keep on arguing with him, and so much work for one person to write up an arbcom case... Meanwhile, Sam Spade puts little effort-- to say the least-- in trying to 'work things out' when he goes on his regular inquisitions (some of which he even lists here.) 172 | Talk 12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Losing some indent.) I don't see any indication on this page that Silence or SS intend to try what you propose, WAS. I have to say I would rather see the proposal from them, the people who would actually be involved. They haven't responded to your post, nor did Silence offer to try anything of the kind in any of his previous posts, so we're hardly entitled to assume he's prepared to. I invite Silence and SS to put a proposal on this page if they have one, so other people will have some basis for deciding whether it's worth holding back on the RFAR or not. It's just a terrible idea to expect the people who brought this RFC to hang around on the off-chance that a beneficial process is taking place behind the scenes, while the evidence they've already collected grows stale. It will be a lot of work to collect yet another batch of diffs; people have articles to write and RL commitments to honor, they can't spend their lives trying to bring Sam Spade to account, and they shouldn't have to. Btw, WAS, I take issue with your repeated and bolded accusation that "no one sincerely tried"; as far as it relates to this RFC, it can presumably only mean that what people are doing here is pretending to try. That's invidious. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree completely with I invite Silence and SS to put a proposal on this page if they have one,. We should only wait til May 1 if actual effort is evident on a regular basis by both Silence and Sam. And so far I also see no evidence of sincere efforts by Sam. And just as in my earlier statements concerning sincere efforts, I again state this does not mean they have not taken place, I am only saying I have not seen them. WAS 4.250 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are, and I did take your emphasis on not having seen any sincere efforts into account, you know. That was why I qualified my comment by saying "as far as it relates to this RFC". Surely you've seen this RFC? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

We apparently misunderstand one another. I thought it was obvious that I was not referring to "this RFC"; because I am in support of this RFC; I am trying to make this RFC succeed in helping the problem; I am trying to not throw away this RFC and replace it with arbcom unless and until it itself can be used as current proof we tried and failed to resolve the issue, thereby getting "our ducks in arow" if/when arbcom becomes the next appropriarte step. You are saying ready, fire I am saying ready, aim, (then if necessary) fire. If Sam responds appropriate to this situation, then arbcom will not be needed. If he refuses to work in a productive helpful proactive way with Silence and merely keeps saying "what next"; then "what next" is arbcom. Sam asked for this mediation with this comment on his talk page:

I'd be glad to join you under the eye of policy scrutiny. Mediation would be the next step. Sam Spade 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All he needs to do for this mediation to be successful is to agree to put teeth into this statement of his on his talk page so if he breaks this resolution of his anytime before some agreed on date then admins can legitimately block him for it (otherwise, arbcom is necessary):

Thank you, thats very thoughtful. I have decided to rethink my role here, and to focus on improving articles which are free from conflict. The wikipedia has a bad system for resolving differences of opinion, and I have spent too much time experiencing that. It does however have alot of good people (such as yourself) and positive aspects. I plan to spend what little time I am here interacting with pleasent people and unconflicted pages for the foreseable future. Thank you again for your note, Sam Spade 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) WAS 4.250 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think your talking about, but if you find an arbcom case to be necessary, I suggest you attempt Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution first, I wasn't even aware you had a problem w me, 4.250

Sam Spade 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Sam, if you're at all interested in the possibility of resolving the disputes catalogued in this RfC peacefully and simply, I strongly advise replying to my previous comment on this Talk page with your thoughts regarding my proposals. I've tried to keep the tone of this discussion layed-back and cooperative, but people are quickly becoming impatient with your unresponsiveness; I think your response could determine whether this situation can simply be diffused and people can move on, or whether ArbCom will become necessary. It's up to you. -Silence 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I found you suggestion disagreeable, and had no immediate comment. Perhaps I would have responded by now, but the atmosphere here is polluted. You (Silence) seem like a nice person, and I assume good faith in your regards. I can assume good faith of other specific individuals, but I cannot honestly claim to assume good faith on the part of all parties.

Similarly I can apologize for specific things, but a general apology for having been myself is rather odd, and won't help matters. I am willing to discuss with you in a polite and controlled environment, but this is a freakshow.

I don't respond well to threats. If people feel they have a valid arbcom case against me, and wish to see me discontinue editing, they can attempt to impose sanctions on me. I certainly won't edit if that is the case. There will be no "teeth", formal or otherwise, because I won't continue to assist a project dominated by unpleasent individuals.

I advise those parties uninterested in polite discussion to engage in an arbcom case. I'll be very busy for the foreseable future, and perhaps they can help convince me to cease editing. I have the final say in regards to my involvement with this project, and am beginning to be convinced that I dislike it here. The project has some good policies, and some good people, but it appears that too much allowance for abuse is choking them out. The collaborative editing process here is not working. Perhaps someday that will change, but I see no reason for optimism here and now. Sam Spade 15:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I don't respond well to threats" is the main reason I tried to tone things down a bit and hold off the ArbCom warnings and other "or else"s: I didn't think threats would be remotely effective in resolving this conflict. But, oh well. You seem to have all but given up, and most of the other users in this RfC have reached the boiling point and just want to see decisive, administrative action as soon as possible, not more bargains and negotiations. So, I guess there's only one thing left to do, if people are so determined about it. Good luck, and see you later. -Silence 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry things didn't work out the way you hoped, your involvement here was beneficial, even if your solutions didn't sway the hearts and minds of some of the more intractable among the opposition. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I'm not going to give up hope on you, or anybody else here. :) Here's to an orderly and unmelodramatic arbitration! -Silence 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear

Ok, it seems to me that:

1. Sam isn't interested in having a serious discussion about his conduct. Despite the broad-based criticism, he has not made any real admission of error on his part. The possibilities for resolving this through discussion with Sam seem to have been exhausted (in reality, they were probably exhausted over a year ago...)
2. We had therefore better take this to ArbCom.

Do we all agree on this? Or am I being too hasty? Cadr 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking everybody, or merely the people who brought the RFC, who I think would be the natural composers of an RFAR. This because they already have their telling diff collections and writeups, which would be appropriate and convenient to recycle (provided you don't wait for the material to get too old first). But for what it's worth, I do agree. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

I think everyone agrees its arbcom time. WAS 4.250 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hgilbert 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed-- and at least a couple of years too late. 172 | Talk 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been very hesitant to get involved in this dispute at all since I'm a new user, but I've spent the past few days reading the discussion pages that Sam has been involved in, and his persistent unreasonableness is quite evident. He is right: everyone else is wrong. He is NPOV, everyone else is POV. He acts in good faith; everyone else has an ulterior motive. His view is in the majority; if it isn't, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. And so on.

Personally, I think the guy is essentially a sophisticated troll, getting his jollies from frustrating and upsetting other users who *are* editing in good faith - while hypocritically hiding behind Wiki policy to avoid criticism. But in terms of this particular resolution, I can't see what other choice there is when he refuses to even participate (as usual) in discussion of his behaviour on the grounds that "the atmosphere here is polluted". Gatoclass 12:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)