User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive March 2004

Request.
Dear Sam Spade,

There is a bit of a dispute at the Menachem Mendel Schneerson page. I am new at Wikipedia and not up to speed on the process for resolving such a dispute. If you could look into it and give me some advice it would be much appreciated.

Regards, Fire Star 17:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Sam Spade,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I have now had some limited discussion with the user whom I asked you about - Chabad, even an email from Chabad to my home computer, and I feel (based on writing style, nothing more) that he or she is probably a young kid. I have tried to be kind and reasonable, and he or she has in their turn tried to explain themselves to me, somewhat. I don't think that the user in question really understands the NPOV requirement (although it has been explained). Other people are now reverting the edits Chabad is making. I guess my quandary is; I don't think what is happening is malicious, Chabad seems to sincerely believe what he or she is doing is accurate and factual, yet it is disrupting the exposition on what could be an interesting page. Would that conceivably fit the definition of vandalism (or perhaps artefact)?

Thanks again, Fire Star 01:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strange anonymous note
Greetings. I just noticed that you were asking on talk about how to get other WP'ans to use your new name and not your old one; I don't think WP has any way of controlling the writing of all WPans, even if there were such a policy. But if you stay out of any conflicts for a while, and are specially nice to the most active people around here, and help them understand that you don't want your surname used in connexn with you without badgering them... then there will be enough people supporting your position to keep the peace. (btw -- why do you keep your old username's talk-pages around? is it just temporary?) 24.128.27.113 04:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zubrovka
Instead of Tequila how 'bout a fifth of Zubrovka? That's more my style. BTW you probably didn't notice that I have been editing the Guide to Advocacy. As I told His Lordship I will participate, but I hate these organizational things; it will have to be something that I eventually add to my professional resumé. I am glad to help out, do you really think that AMA needs coordination? [[User:Alex756|— Alex756 talk] 05:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Asymmetric warfare
Thanks for the compliment on my editing! :) This article is a toughy--I'm trying to iron into some semblance of accuracy and NPOV without starting an edit war. Wish me luck! Cecropia 09:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

raul
Sam, I wish you'd calm down a bit at Raul. I understand it's frustrating, but from his perspective, it looks like you're hiding something by pulling your comments off of pages. Give him time to figure out what's going on, and try to explain it to him, rather than yelling at him. To answer your question, of course you _can_ take messages off of talk pages, but usually it does get reverted if it appears that you are trying to hide something (in other words, if you post something to the wrong page and pull it a minute or two later, with the summary "oops, wrong page", no one will revert, but if it looks as though you're trying to go back and act as though you never made a particular comment, many editors find that un-Wiki-like in spirit. I personally strikethrough comments 99% of the time because it's easier that way -- it shows I made a comment, and realized later I shouldn't have. Just a suggestion, Jwrosenzweig 19:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam, I think we agreed once. Can't remember. ;-) I understand the issue. I do think there is confusion, partly because many of us believed that JL was your real name and that IS was a pseudonym (I had thought that for weeks, in fact). Or do I have it backwards now? And part of the confusion is that both of those names appear on a subpage of your user page, so someone wanting to track you down easily can. I don't think people should be rude about it, though, and I'll try to talk to them if you tell me who they are. I'm almost never on IRC, and I have to admit that all I can recall seeing about this in the last 2-3 weeks was your note to Jimbo and Martin's exchange with you (when I see Jimbo's talk page in use, I like to look at what's going on...hence I saw the issue). I do my best to be polite because I think you are usually polite to others and deserve the courtesy. Glad you noticed and appreciate it. Hope I continue to meet with your approval in future. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure you catch Raul's apology to you on his talk page. He did misunderstand, as I'd suspected. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 23:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: Requests for Assistance
Sorry if my revision was hasty. I figured that the information was largely duplicated by your post on the main AMA page and the fact that you're maintaining a separate client list on your user page. That's why I didn't think that much discussion was necessary. Also, as Angela pointed out, I'm not sure whether it would always be good, given the potential privacy and confidentiality desires of clients, to post such information along with requests for assistance. I would imagine that as when the page gets used, each request would get deleted as soon as we found an advocate to take the case. --Michael Snow 03:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does the AMA need a Chairman?
I decided to call the position "interim coordinator" because as a democratic association I thought it would be better that there was no connotation that someone was "in charge", i.e. that there was no position of authority because the association is not any kind of "official organ" of Wikipedia, just a group that wants to help other Wikipedians in a simple genuine way (as Angela was suggesting). I think calling any such post a Chairman's position is a mistake. There are already enough posts on Wikipedia, soon there will be an election for members representatives, this place is becoming more bureaucratic by the day (sometimes because that is part of the development of an organization) but we are just people (hopefully no bots will try and become advocates) trying to help other people, not create more structure. I really think the AMA should be as informal as possible at least for now until advocacy has developed further working with the arbitration and mediation committees. [[User:Alex756|— Alex756 talk] 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Kind of like Alex, I think coordinator sounds less officious than chairman, and it's the term we've used primarily on the talk page so far. Let's ask there if anybody's interested in the job. --Michael Snow 06:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

anarchism
Dear Sam, the current state of anarchy is that it is decending rapidly into chaos. Not only are those with ideology producing hack-jobs and cut-offs, but those whose primary interest is the article itself are beginning to feed the troll. Now appears to be the best time to warn people before a page protection would be required. yours for a complete and accurate anarchy Fifelfoo 03:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Sam, my suspicion is that we all are currently the troll. One solution would be to freeze anarchism, libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism (and anything else drawn into the trolling) for half a week or so. Time and repose is the best way to cure troll wars. Fifelfoo 03:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I replied to your comment on my talk page. I will not reply to anything else you have to say, nor will I edit any of the Anarchism articles again. It seems that the only way I can avoid getting in this kind of conflict is to edit math articles, where ignorant people just ask for clarification of obscure passages on talk pages instead of accusing knowledgeable people of misrepresentation. Sadly, even in Science topics (in modern physics and biology especially) this kind of thing happens, too. — Miguel 17:09, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

Sixto Nolasco
Dear Sam: Hi! Thanks for reading the article that I originated about Sixto Nolasco. I agree with you one hundred percent, I love photos on articles. So far I was granted permission for the photos on Prinair and Wilfred Benitez, I am in the process of asking for permission for photos for Delta Air Lines, Mexicana de Aviacion and Wilfredo Gomez and I was denied permission to use a photo of Menudo.

I emailed Mr. Nolasco through his website to see if we could use some photos either of him or of some of his models but unfortunately, this is still in the process aka: he hasnt answered yet.

Thanks for your comment and God bless you! I hope we can build a constructive wikipedian relationship!

Sincerely yours, Antonio XXXcetera Martin

Miguel
I replied to you on my page against my better judgement. — Miguel 01:44, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

You are welcome on User talk:Miguel/Sam Spade. — Miguel 16:37, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

RFA
I added you to Requests for adminship. Perl 02:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed you for the reasons you pointed out on User talk:Perl. I would have supported you, so I hope you don't mind.—Eloquence 09:59, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Politically correct
Thanks for your frankness over there. :) I used to be anti-PC as well; I think I now understand the purpose of it, although I agree it's often taken to extremes. That purpose being to prevent the exclusion of people from society based on meaningless distinctions, or handicaps they can overcome. --zandperl 14:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meet up
Dang that sounds cool, and even pretty close to me (same state). Maybe sometime in Columbus would be better (Dayton is maybe 5 hours away from me as I live a bit east of Cleveland). --Karl Wick

Wikipedia vigilantes
Jack, I notices your lynching party over on the requests for deadminship page and thought it appropriate to nod your way in support. It's not that I want allies on the battle field - I am not even my own ally. But it is interesting to see the same adolescent pattern employed against other editors.

It appears the trend here is for people to join the site, write a few articles, mob up with a few allies and gain admin status. The admins that rush in when they smell conflict unversally take a side and begin slandering the other party in the conflict with insults like "vandal" and on-line versions of the "n" word. (it starts with "t").

Essentially, these are probably people whose parents suppressed their expression as children and now these people need an opportunity to suppress and dominate someone else. An on-line environment provides an excellant oppurtunity for some people to recapitulate childhood conflict, and we see probably three dozen or so administrators here actively spending their days behaving in ways any reasonable pschoanalyst can recognize as neurotic or representative of a personality disorder, usually relating to social interaction. Of course the most common form of communication from these vigilantees is demands phrased to sound parental. Usually they speak in orders such as to "comply with my demands, please or I will force you to join our concensus."

A few research assistants here at the department are gathering some data to scope out a possible study of the phenomenon. There is an abundance of literature available describing these behaviors in on-line environments, but we have never before had an opportunity to study them is a group, except for the research that has been gleaned from studies of USENET. In this case, the authoritarian component is unique, and it is uniquely attached to a sense of intellectual credibility becuase of the ostensibly educational nature of the project.

The lynching of bird is classic. User:bird is a surly editor who has little patience for innaccuracy, in bird's own writing or in the work of others. Bird is likely to return to articles bylines Bird and remove Birds own statements that appear to be generalities rather than specifics. When bird began exposing the innaccuracy of several articles, somebody went for a rope and the lyching was on. Apparently, the lynch mob so likes birds self critique, they want to ban the user name so the technique will reappear under several other names before they eventually begin to recognize the humanity of editors such as bird who contributed for several weeks without interfering with any other editors.

One editor, however, Washington irving had the gaul to claim he had textbooks on his shelf to tell him the cerebellum is not part of the archipallium, but he failed to correct the error for several weeks because he knew bird to be insane. now there is some freindly collaboration. Irving had little to contribute and is the major instigator of the Kill Bird Campaign. OF the others who jumped into the fray, none had any interest in the articles in question before they joined Irvings posse, and none has communicated with Bird in an honest effort to understand bird's concerns (which are easy enough to understand from the statements bird made when starting to review earlier contributions for accuracy).

My personal opinion is that this site represents a microcosm of the imperialist attitudes of Americans and Brits. It might be a good thing that editors expose their behavioral styles here, because so exposed, intelligence agencies from nations threatened by these empires can better study the sociopathic psyche of the Western Capitalist mind.

anthere
Sam.

I recognise your work in starting the request for mediation page. It is entirely true that you started the page. But be careful with words. There is a clear difference of meaning between create a page, start a page, edit a page, participate to a page, wrote a page.

Wrote a page means you are his main participant. However, most of your initial (welcome) participation to that page is gone. So, you may write certainly that you started or created the page, you might even say you participated to it (which is also true, but I think created or started implies that you were very willing to implicate yourself, so it is nicer to you than just participated).

However, most of the content of that page was written per others. Plus, and be aware this is important, this page is not entirely a "community" page, because it reflects the discussions and the decisions and the organisation of a group you are not part of, a group which is a subset of the larger group of wikipedians.

As such, this page is before all, the vision of a little group of people, and it is best that this page is edited primarily by those part of this group, since it is their pledge to the community, and the way they decided to work.

If such a page is said "written" by an external member of this sub group, it looks very strange. I hope you understand that.

FirmLittleFluffyThing 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you about Fifelfoo
Matt Stan 15:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
I take what you did here as an act of co-ordinated vandalism. I have now removed all personal comment, which I assume is to your liking. I will no longer take credit for anything in the wikipedia name space, and I have removed all mention of the wikipedia name space pages I have created from my user page. Your offensive act of personal aggression will be remembered. I highly recommend that in the future you discuss such actions before making such an overtly hostile decision. Sam Spade 20:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand your insular nature, and misunderstanding of my intent both in writing the original page, and in taking credit for it. Had you been polite enough to have discussed this with me before reverting my personal statements on a page where I am a member, we would be in a much more amicable position. Unfortunately you are one of the oligarchs, and I the brash reformer, and the bitter wounds from your reversion still pain me. I have gone the extra mile, to comfort you in your avarice, and I have made changes. Please give me the small comfort of informing the next person you feel has become too proud, before you cut his legs from under him. Sam Spade 06:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Shall I submit a Request for mediation for us? That would seem to make this circle neat. Sam Spade 06:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I hope not. I would like to again apologise, and, perhaps for the first time, sincerely. I think a bit of background might be useful here. I've had a rather bad impression of you since we met, when you suggested both that I might be "testing" the wiki somehow, and hinted that I might not be myself (perhaps you thought me a sockpuppet?). That, along with our less than friendly contact on the mailing list ...

Thu Jan 22 21:19:06 PST 2004 I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but it seems you may have a misperception of my intent. Unless we difine the word "test" differently, I do not mean to "test" anybody here, but rather be part of making things better. Also, as far "Do not test the mailing list administration" I must insist I'm not aware of what is ment by that, but I would really appreciate a tutorial on how to use the mailing list, and rules and regulations regarding it. I've been having problems recieving mail, I have thus far been reading mail thru the archive, accessed by the "Welcome to the "WikiEN-l" mailing list" letter I recieved. When I asked for help on IRC, they described recieving a great deal of mail (perhaps one letter for every post? I have selected NOT to recieve mail in "digest mode" which some felt to be my problem (doesn't seem to have made any difference). Thanks so much for any help, Jack(word removed re trolling below)

>Jack

>When you registered to the mailing list yesterday or two days ago, you >indicated "Jack" as a name reference.

>Jack, I know you are testing us in turns, to check our processes and make >things move on. It is good, and nice of you to feel so much interested in >participating to the process, but do remember to let us time to build >things as well.

>Do not test the mailing list administration please.


 * The lack of contact or assistance afterwards created within me an antagonistic view of yourself. I felt that you assumed bad faith (or worse) on my part, and had additionally refused me assistance. Finially, the particulars of you reverting my "members statement" just after Bcorr was especially upsetting, due to incidents like this which have made me quite resentful of what I feel to be Bcorr's intentional harassment of myself. When you reverted my revert of him, I took that badly. Anyhow, I again apologise, and hope you understand the situation a bit bit better given the specifics. Sam Spade 14:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Now I am very confused. The "personal endangerment" by me that you talked about on Jimbo's talk page less than two weeks ago -- and that link to in the above paragraph -- was that I had used your surname on a talk page (Talk:Pantheism) -- the very surname that you included in your post above. So, am I to understand that the harassment that you suffered at my hands consisted of something that you now are doing yourself? Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:58, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam. I see you've removed the surname from the text above that I referred to. I'm glad I was able to help by noticing that for you. Now that we seem to have reestablished a working relationship and a somewhat more cordial dialogue, in the spirit of cooperation I want to point out to you have had it listed for almost a month at Wikipedia_talk:Association_of_Members -- which is of course the page that led to this whole problem between us in the first place. And I will assume that your comment calling me a troll is simply another of your humorous comments to try to reduce the tension between us. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен  15:37, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

---


 * It is ok to let personal statement, but perhaps in a side page. If we let statements made by people as is, I request that we add below when it is incorrect. It goes further than just the authorship point. The mediation pages have been written by members of the mediation committee, because they are what the committee pledge to the community. Sam is not a member of the committee. In letting such a comment, we somehow begin to agree he is a little bit part of it. Would anyone think of claiming he made the rules of the arbitration committee ? I doubt it. On top of it, this is not something I think Sam should write :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing


 * If you don't like what I write, talk to me about it, as mr. snow reccomends. Otherwise, its just gossip. Sam Spade 05:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * please consider what I was writing on your page just while you were writing that. I would appreciate that you cool down, and avoid both accusation of gossip and vandalism. Thanks FirmLittleFluffyThing


 * I will be more convinced by your desire for contentment on the parts of your "inferiors" when you choose to offer them cake ;) Sam Spade 06:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You have insulted me three time in less than 24 hours. The next time, I ban you :-)

I don't consider you a troll at all. I have seen instances where sysops have purposely tried to make you react in a troll like way, but from what i've seen, your responses have been professional and calm headed. I thought that you would have made a great sysop, because of this quality you have, but people hold grudges. Perl 21:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Sam. I don't think strong language is ever professional -- sometimes called for, perhaps, but it always feels like a breakdown of social order to me. That's not to say I haven't been sorely tempted to swear at a couple of users here (never you, don't worry), but I've always avoided it, and I'm pleased that I have. You're right that there are issues to be solved here....a lot of them don't seem to stem from people swearing at each other, but at a general sense that there is no accountability for actions. I don't know what to do about that, other than be the best editor and admin I can be and try to make people feel at least respected by me, if not encouraged. I hope I've succeeded. I'll admit, you're the toughest editor for me to figure out: I don't believe you're here to make trouble (a la Plautus, Khranus, and a number of others have been), but you seem to end up in the middle of a lot of trouble, and on several occasions I've found you very unyielding and closed-minded (though I admit, you've always been remarkably positive and responsive to me, which I appreciate very much, if I've never said it before). Ultimately I can't say that I trust your judgment implicitly, but I do trust that you have good intentions here, which is more than I can say for quite a few folks who wander through, and I always know that, when I disagree with you, you're willing to talk about it. And that's a pretty ringing endorsement in my book, though I worry it will seem like a backhanded compliment. I hope you don't think I was bashing you in my comments today--I try very hard to be fair to everyone, especially to you, as I think there have been instances where you've been dealt with unfairly. I hope, though, that you are making every effort to be fair to others yourself, and I've seen real evidence of that lately. Keep it up, my friend (if it isn't presumptuous to regard you as something more than an acquaintance here). :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have never seen an instance where Sam uses strong language. I might be wrong about Sam behaving professionaly, because I have only seen his responses to me and other users on the advocate page. Mabye there is some long and messy history between sam and the other users, but I have only seen his recent behavior on the Advocate page, and it seems that he was being picked on. (possibly because he behaved poorly in the past, I dont know). Also, please don't give me examples of his poor behavior, because I really don't care what he has done in the past to other people. I just focus on the present, and he seems to be behaving responsibly when he interacts with me. Thanks, Perl 21:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks
What are the rules for when an admin (or other higher up) feels they have been "insulted"? Might they ban on short notice, or what? What are the specific guidelines (I assume there are none?)? Sam Spade 07:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As a reminder, you accused me of vandalism, gossip, you said I was an oligarch, impolite, avaricious, hinted that I saw you as an "inferior", and added to this to, on top of it, make fun of my english abilities possibly.
 * The guidelines or the rules, with regards to accusations and insults, are the same for everyone. Some guidelines often suggested and which I will follow in your case are "remove all personal attacks". I will do this later in the day, to let time for a couple of people to appreciate.
 * The recommandations for the one who insulted another are usually "apology".
 * I think the idea of short banning for more than 3 insults is an interesting one to explore ;-) But of course, that would require a vote of agreement off all participants before doing so. FirmLittleFluffyThing 07:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this mean your not going to ban me? And how did you decide the above to be insulting? Is the truth insulting? If so, are we not in the wrong place (encyclopedias are a bastion of truth, theoretically) when we complain of the above sorts of "insults"? I stand by my words, and my emotions. I did not insinuate anything I did not think was true, and I never at anytime intended less than polite discourse with you. Perhaps I exaggerated, and yes, I did introduce some sly humor into the conversation, but not for sake of insult, but rather with intent for you to realize I was capable of thought, and perhaps occasionally, wit. I do apologize for any perceived insult, but I hope you have learned from this not to go about reverting without thought to those involved. Sam Spade 08:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I don't feel that Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks is the appropriate venue to raise issues you have with Anthere and the reverts she made, so I have moved it here and left a refactored version in its place which deals with the actual issue of bans for personal attacks rather than whatever problems you are having with Anthere. If you want to discuss this with Anthere, please use her talk page as it does not seem to be relevant to the banning policy. Thank you. Angela . 01:47, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

wiki-squablings?
Thank you for looking out for my best interests. If you ever need a member advocate, I'd be happy to act as yours. By the way, I don't know why there is so much "internal squabbling" between wikipedians. Mabye it is human nature to enjoy fighting. (the reason things such as World Wrestling Federation are so popular) (I am a pacifist) Anyway, best wishes, Perl 02:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)