User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

User Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade

Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sam_Spade

What links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=User%3ASam_Spade

As JackLynch

 * vandalized Atheism and Agnosticism pages
 * User:Lord_Kenneth#Wall_of_Shame
 * more on the Kenneth Alan dispute: Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive/Lord_Kenneth_%28JackLynch%29
 * More past conduct disputes:
 * Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive/JackLynch
 * http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:sMucydnuhMQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputes+JackLynch+site:en.wikipedia.org&hl=en
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk%3APossible_misuses_of_sysop_rights&diff=2300839&oldid=2277297


 * name change: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:SCXDkuXlMkEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive1+JackLynch+site:en.wikipedia.org&hl=en
 * Is there some trick to getting the above link working? What is the evidence that Lynch and Spade are the same?--Silverback 22:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's at Changing_username/Archive1 about half way down the page. --Ben Brockert 19:34, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

As Sam Spade
"I'm known both for my candor and wit, as well as my engaging manner and thoughtful attentions."


 * false accusation against User:RickK?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=3710208#do_not_vandalize_my_user_page
 * Request for arbitration by User:172: Requests_for_arbitration
 * Request for arbitration by User:Danny:

Political bias

 * From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
 * This is a good thing. It is not evidence of intentional bias, but evidence that Sam recognizes avoids his own biases. How many others on Wikipedia can show this? Hyacinth 19:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing"
 * Attempts to sugarcoat racist views


 * The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim.


 * Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)


 * Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
 * User_talk:Andries
 * Talk:Nazism


 * From Talk:Socialism:
 * "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
 * "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman)
 * "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10)


 * More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
 * Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))


 * Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.


 * Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking.

Talk:Anarchism

 * On anarcho-capitalism: "From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one. I reserve the right to defend myself, my values, and my property and will not hesitate to utlize every means necessary to do so, regardless of the desires or presence of a state. Also the definition of Libertarian Socialist (an oxymoron whose mention has lead to hearty amusement amongst many I have discussed it with) is so convoluted and bizarre as to possibly include myself as well, I wouldn't know, I don't understand it any better than that ass Chomsky who advocates it." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC), quoted by me, 22:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10)

Religious bias

 * Insists on POV representation of atheistic views on the Soul page ,


 * Miscellaneous quotes:
 * "I am biased in favor of...God" (Sam Spade 22:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Raul654/archive)
 * "When it comes to converting non-believers...I personally favor deductive reasoning." (Sam Spade 17:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God)
 * "I love God w every fiber of my being" (Sam Spade 21:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Heterosexuality)
 * "God is the name of the Absolute Infinite, the one God who is all. He is not included among your "gods" and failing to mention him creates an error in your definition of atheism. You are implying that you only reject the false, lesser gods, and you fail to address the great "I AM"". (Jack 17:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC), Talk:Atheism/Archive_5)
 * "God is not a god." (Jack 21:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC))
 * "I have known alot of neopagans, and the jokes about them are constant. Just today, for example, my family spent a solid 10 minutes making light of neopaganism whilst watching blair witch 2." (Sam Spade 04:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Paganism)
 * "As an outsider, a voodoo priestess or tribal witch doctor would prob make me nervous. I have seen both on documentaries, and they gave me a "witchy" type impression. Wiccans on the other hand remind me more of renaissance fair attendees (altho more punk/hippy type fashions), or antiwar protestors, and are about as worthy of the title "witch" IMO (and I ascribe to the traditional definition of the word, scary people we used to burn, and who still are burned in Africa) as a school girl on Halloween." (Sam Spade 05:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Paganism)
 * "Theism is a pragmatic faith, atheism a no-win soloution (in my POV satanism disguised)." (Sam Spade [as JackLynch] 23:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC), Talk:Pantheism/Archive_1


 * Talk:Atheism dispute: In a comment timestamped 01:13, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC), Jack Lynch appeared to agree to set aside the issue of the capitalization of the word "god" for the time being, and to stick to the compromise to use "deity" instead. But approximately four hours later, he moved the entire discussion to Talk:Atheism/Archive_5, and then began editing the Atheism page once again to restore the capital "G" to "God" and add/remove information to suit his POV , , , , , , , (note the false edit summary), . By doing so, he managed to provoke a new, full-scale edit war, during which he reverted the article 5 times in one day , , , , . Concurrent discussion can be found at Talk:Atheism/Archive_6. The edit war subsided for a time, but come February, Jack was back, except this time as "Sam Spade" ,  (note misleading "minor" edit label), . Only a few, mostly benign edits from Sam February-July (although there was this: ), but now in August he's back to his old tricks, vandalizing atheism-related pages , ,  (another misleading edit summary), , , . It seems he can't stop, really.
 * Even though I'm a non-believer (atheist or agnostic, depending on your definition of God), I still usually capitalize God out of respect for believers.--Silverback 22:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly its this type of muddled thinking which the authors of the atheism page were trying to avoid. The argument was never about weather you spell the Abramatic deity's name as God or god.  It was about weather atheists don't believe in God or weather atheists don't beleive in any gods.  By pushing the capitalization of God, Sam Spade was attempting to put his own bias into the article by insisting that in the atheist's mind God (whom is his god specifically) was more important than any other god.  Of course atheists capitalize God, just like they capitalize Zeus, but the more important question is if atheists reject all deities or only a specific deity named God. millerc 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Racism/Anti-Semitism

 * "Primitive man is also backwards, diseased and superstitious, having many obvious drawbacks which incline most indigenous people to embrace the modern life." (Sam Spade 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thinks Holocaust deniers should be treated as equally credible to mainstream historians, whom he refers to as "Jewish organizations". (Talk:Jew/Archive 7)
 * This link doesn't get to the quote.--Silverback 22:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now it does, as it had been archived and Spleeman was linked to the original talk page. IZAK 04:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Quotes:
 * "The term "Holocaust" is always POV." (Sam Spade 22:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew) Really? I didn't know that!
 * "It would almost never apply in an NPOV, encyclopedic sense, but might in cases of people being vigorously hacked apart, which is not what the nazi's generally did. They mainly worked people to death in reletively unhealthful conditions, gassing the weak (young, old, disabled, etc...). I don't find "slaughter" much more relevent in an encyclopedic sense here than it would be in describing... say the slave ships carrying africans to the new world." (Sam Spade 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Jew/Archive 7)


 * Sam uses edit wars and other tactics, such as placing warnings at the tops of articles, to bully his opponents into accepting his POV. Recently, on the Jew page, he placed a "totally disputed" warning on the page because of two sentences he didn't like (Talk:Jew/Archive 7). When another editor removed the warning, Sam reverted the page  and added an "attention" warning . Another editor put it best when reverting this silliness: "An article doesn't become totally disputed and in need of attention because someone stumbles across it and doesn't like one sentence."


 * The disputed sentences link does not get to the right place either. This would be more useful if we could see the original evidence.--Silverback 22:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fixed, as the link was subsequently archived. IZAK 04:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homophobia/transphobia

 * From Exploding Boy's talk page
 * "Gay stuff bothers me" (Sam Spade 03:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)) -- if he's so bothered by "gay stuff", why does he edit so many gay-related pages?
 * Talk from Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Gay_bathhouse
 * Refers to the subject of the gay bathhouse article as "clearly objectionable" -- note the use of "clearly" indicating his apparent inability to see how other's views could differ from his own
 * Refers to homosexuality as a "depraved lifestyle"
 * See also Talk:Gay_bathhouse
 * Edits from the Gay bathhouse article:
 * "(and sexy)": ,
 * From the heterosexuality talk page (see especially his comments on the subject of heteronormativity):
 * Calls things he disagrees with, doesn't understand, or isn't "focused on" at the moment "ideosyncratic (sic)" and/or "BS" and wants them removed
 * Refers to gay slang to as "paraphiliac jargon"
 * Miscellaneous quotes:
 * "In the past people understood that men and women marrying was normal, and other types of sexuality were not suited to matrimony"
 * "I don't like the term "bisexual""
 * "Heterosexuality is the sort of sexuality which I encourage, and which I choose to participate in"
 * "I think the concept of "bisexuality" puts too much emphasis on choice and freedom, which is not something I generally approve of"
 * More on heteronormativity:
 * Talk:Heteronormativity
 * Edit history
 * ""heteronormative"...is a junk science term invented for the purpose of misleading those allowing its use towards perverse and unmerited conclusions" (Sam Spade 22:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Prevalence_of_heterosexuality)
 * Calls effeminacy a "vice"
 * Considers his moral viewpoints the standard of morality and "general consensus" on paraphilia
 * Talk:Paraphilia
 * Edit history
 * On homosexuals' sexual activity and the nature of sexual orientation: "I've successfully made the joke for years that if your [sic] not sexually active, your not homosexual." (Sam Spade 20:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC), Talk:Sexual_orientation)
 * On the use of "clinical" terminology: "I certainly will impose clinical and other precise terminology upon the wikipedia." (Sam Spade 22:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Hyacinth)
 * On homosexuality and Nazism: "I very much agree with Brian Kendig, and would point out that equating homosexuality and nazism is not a new nor utterly uncommon idea.... There was a large pink swastika rally at a church within a block of my mothers house just a few years ago. (Sam Spade 08:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Main_page)

Behavioral notes

 * Constantly chides others for breaking wiki policy, yet often breaks same policies, especially when it comes to civility issues and missing edit summaries ,


 * Seeks out controversial articles, especially ones that relate in some way to his moral, political, and/or religious beliefs


 * Makes changes to articles in accordance with his POV, , , ,


 * Frequently engages ideological opponents in online debates; provokes frustration and anger in opponents; starts/participates in edit wars


 * Is convinced other users are out to get him ,
 * For instance, he believes a group of "rabidly pro-homosexual editors" are trying to prevent him from editing gay-related pages due to their "pro-gay POV slant" (User_talk:Raul654/archive)

More on interactions with other users

 * User:172:
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004
 * User:AndyL
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004_2
 * User:Hyacinth
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_July_2004
 * User:Nat Krause
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_June_2004_2
 * User:GrazingshipIV
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User:Viajero
 * User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_May_2004
 * User:Bcorr
 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2
 * User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403
 * User_talk:Bcorr/Archive_200403
 * User:David Gerard
 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive_2
 * User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_1
 * User:Mirv
 * User_talk:Mirv
 * User:Sunray
 * User_talk:Sunray

This is a Political Trial for Thoughtcrimes. Highly NOT reccommended!
Hey, folks, leave Sam alone! He was one of my most active and fierce critics for edits on Iridology. But hey, are you after witches or something? Leave the man/lady/Wiki editor at large just as he/she is - free and alone! Or I'll report your acts as a fascist deviation! The right to free speech includes leaving people free to think as they deem fit. If they express themselves, it's there inalienable right. Raising files with profiles and then spamming editors with "urgent" nonsense and stuff raises specters of political police! When I was younger I myself had a huge file in Securitate for opposing communism. I wish not see this experience again! For anybody! If you don't like what Sam thinks, say so, write to him, demonstrate in front of him with facts and your stuff that his opinions are not yours, etc. But don't carry him to Salem for more witch*hunting. Duh! Disgusting! - irismeister 22:54, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade has been actively witch hunting for some time now, this page documents his efforts at hiding other people's POV's. Duh! Read the evidence. millerc 04:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Does this offend the no personal attacks rule of Wikipedia. We all have our biases.  It doesn't matter if we profess them, so long as it is not carried over to the articles.  This seriously resemble lynching. Mandel 04:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * You miss the point; the problem isn't just that Sam Spade has biases, we all do. His problem is that his definition of NPOV is his POV, he has been repeadedly told to read the NPOV page, and he still insists on erasing any POVs that disagree with his own from articles, even when they're properly attributed.  He started a VfD on the libertarian socialism page simply because he didn't agree with libertarian socialism!  I'm sure there are a lot of wikipedians who don't believe in Christianity, but would it be proper for them to try to delete its article and everything pertaining to Christianity in other articles?  He is heavy handed and extremely pushy.  Beyond his own propaganda, anyone who has had experience in dealing with him knows that he is rarely capable of compromise or of rational discourse.  He is also extremely hypocritical; he uses whatever tactics he can to get his own way, while actively denouncing others who've used similar tactics.


 * Its not a trial for thought crimes, its simply documenting that Sam Spade is incapable of acting in a civil manner while dealing with others. He can still talk about his own POV all he wants to, and he frequently does.  That's not the problem that people have with him.  His attempts at irriating those whom he doen't agree with into leaving an article, and his erasure of other POVs from articles are more important than him talking about himself on talk pages.


 * I may also point out that Spleeman's own bias leans toward anarchism (real anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism). So it make sense that he would create a page like this (its called direct action) when the formalities of wikipedia and the wikipedian power hierarchy have been incapable, or unwilling to deal with his obviously inappropriate but not quite rule breaking behavior (although he has broken the no personal attacks rule on many occasions).


 * Since this page was created Sam Spade has relented to some extent on his bad behaviors. So it has served a purpose.  Those communities that were struggling with Sam Spade's inability to cooperate, are now able to advance the state of the articles which Sam Spade was vandalizing, while Sam Spade may still actively participate in wikipedia. millerc 04:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)