Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Sam Spade edit wars at Socialism
Examples from March 24 to April 1, 2006:


 * - reverts and accuses me of POV in edit summary
 * - reverts the WHOLE day's work and fails to mention reversion in edit summary
 * 
 * - calls my reversion "foolish"
 * 
 * - reverts whole day's work again
 * - reverts the WHOLE day's work; decides to work on his own version - revert to his version once again
 * 
 * - another unexplained reversion
 * - deceptive edit summary - in fact a revert
 * - reverts after I replace with suggested version saying that there have been objections on the talk page. - no objections on talk page at time of Sam's revert.
 * - deceptive edit summary
 * - talk page at that time shows NO OBJECTIONS to suggested version, not even from Sam.
 * I ask him on his talk page to explain reversions.
 * - reverts to POV version, but removes the POV-because notice.
 * 
 * I ask him again on his talk page to explain his reversion.
 * - reverts, yet does not explain his reversions for 30 minutes - and then gives a half-assed explanation  saying I didn't provide sources (which I did) and that I use weasel words (which his version uses far more of)
 * - removes POV notice for no reason
 * - adds TotallyDisputed tag to the top of the page even though only one section is disputed.
 * - reverts to his version after three editors have AGREED to the other version on the talk page and removes the POV tag
 * - User:Webmaster@sgovd.org restores the consensus version, pointing out Sam Spade's deceptive edit summary
 * - reverts to his version, yet again WITHOUT POV tag
 * - WGee asks Sam Spade to explain reversions
 * - User:Webmaster@sgovd.org notes that "User:Sam Spade seems not to be interested in user discussions nor in a consensus"
 * Please note that this evidence has been pasted in by me at the request of User:Infinity0, who is currently on Wikibreak. Bishonen | talk 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

First assertion
I have been a copious contributer of long standing, contributing a great deal to the wikipedia's content:

User:Sam_Spade/Contributions

Second assertion
I have responded to the concerns described in my RfC, and have ceased all edit warring subsequent to discussion there.

Third assertion
I edit controversial topics almost exclusively, rigorously striving for NPOV.

Fourth assertion
I am unusually willing to discuss my edits and the concerns of others, as particularly evidenced by my willingness to discuss Socialism with Socialists, on and off the wiki:

User_talk:Sam_Spade

User_talk:Sam_Spade

Evidence presented by Pjacobi
This section is work in progress. I'm slowly going through old diffs. Please don't use as evidence or respond to it until this notice is removed.

May 6, 2005

 * 

July 29, 2005
Link to copyvio (subsequently deleted from website)


 * Pjacobi removing:
 * Sam Spade restoring:

Sam Spade responds to his RfC with contempt and "chastisement"
From April 4 to April 14, 2006

Sam Spade typically assumes bad faith and makes ad hominem attacks, not only in the edit wars that the RfC is about, but at and during the RfC itself. The following examples form a chronological narrative, although I've avoided indicating clock timestamps, as people tend to merely get confused by the timezone issues.

April 4: "wikipedia is a playground for hoodlums." In his response section, Sam Spade expresses disdain for the people who initiated and endorsed the RfC, referring to them as "hoodlums" and a hydra of troublemakers, and regretting that he doesn't have time for "the usual [sic] dirt-digging" on them. User:Daycd posts a response which is quickly endorsed by many people. I post an outside view describing Sam as always impugning the motives of his opponents, which is also soon well endorsed.

April 4: Sam posts civilly on my talkpage and I respond in kind. Rather than through separate diffs, the ensuing dialogue on my page can be most conveniently seen in this diff, where I delete the whole of it (please look left and scroll down a little).

April 5: "I am chastising you for your unfortunate involvement in the RfC". When 12 people have endorsed each of Daycd's and my summaries, Sam posts on my page again in a very different tone, accusing me of "abuse" and inviting me to "think about [my] role in where this project is going". I can only suppose that it's the endorsements of my RfC summary that make for his change of attitude, or perhaps the fact that I have signed Daycd's. I reply sharply, taking issue with being accused of "abuse" and inviting Sam to stay off my page. An angry exchange follows, where Sam "chastises" me for what he calls my unfortunate involvement in the RfC, and makes suggestions for how I can become a better contributor. He says several times that if I don't want to dialogue with him on my page I need to "remove myself from the situation" — remove my outside view, I presume, since that's the whole of my involvement — and assures me that he won't leave me alone until I do. This is the only interpretation I can offer of the relevant parts of his messages, but since it's so outrageous that I can hardly believe it myself, do please take a look for yourself. His rationale for this is that "a RfC is designed to provoke dialogue, and is to be engaged in only by those willing to communicate. If you are not (willing to communicate), I ... ask you to remove yourself from the proceedings". I request him several times to stay off my page, and speak angrily, with none of the angelic patience I see some other users display on the RfC talkpage.

April 5. "You do not appear to be an admin." Fuzzie asks Sam to stop going on at me,, and is rebuffed by Sam with extreme haughtiness. He ignores the matter at hand and turns instead to scrutinising Fuzzie: "you do not appear to be an admin", "Please explain your presence here.". When he continues his campaign on my page, Cyde blocks him for 24 hours, but he is quickly unblocked by Andrevan.

April 13. "Huzzah for mob justice." After this quarrel and block, Sam takes a week-long complete break both from the RfC talkpage and from editing the contentious pages he's being accused of "owning"; then he returns in the role of of embittered, blameless victim. "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...)". Others on the talkpage will not accept the way he makes a virtue of avoidance (as he seems to be doing also in his evidence section above, and his statement on the main RFAr page) or his undented self-righteousness. User:Silence argues that "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., Compare the RFAr evidence of KillerChihuahua and the comments of Geogre, who both argue that this change is sinister rather than beneficial, and a time-honored tactic of Sam's. A long haggling about taking the issue to RFAr now follows, with Silence and User:WAS 4.250 fervently inviting Sam to start dialoguing constructively.

April 14. Frustrated, I write a second outside view exhorting the community to make up its mind to request arbitration against Sam before the laboriously collected RfC evidence grows stale. Many sign it. User:Silence "replies" to it with an outside view generously interpreting some of Sam's brief and enigmatic talkpage posts as expressing good will; therefore Silence considers an RFAr premature. Four users sign Silence's view, so the opinion on requesting arbitration is divided; but Sam himself re-unites it by continuing to post bitterly on the talkpage about his own services to the project and his opponents' many collective misdeeds. In reaction, all four signatories cross out their signatures under Silence's statement, including Silence himself. User:Daycd adds the comment "This contempt is worrying".

Conclusion: Even in/during the RfC, where Sam claims that he "immediately ceased the behavior discussed in the RfC upon its creation",  he only did so in the sense of ceasing (bitterly) to edit the articles the RfC was about. People giving evidence here who have experience of editing the same articles don't see this avoidance as a good sign. He has shown no sign of intending, or wishing to, edit without edit warring. He acknowledges no problem with the way he interacts with his peers (I don't indeed see any sign that he thinks other users are his peers) or with the way he edits. So, presumably, the RFAr once over, he wouldn't feel any obligation to change his demeanour or editing practices, unless compelled by restrictions.

Evidence presented by KillerChihuahua
- Please email me if there are questions.

Sam Spade edit wars at God
Sam Spade has inserted an American-centric, questionably sourced statement into the intro of God multiple times, although this has been discussed several times on talk Talk:God, Talk:God, Talk:God, and archives. He states he is "removing bias" although universally the opinion of other editors is that he is actually restoring bias by inserting his view as "fact" Talk:God. In all these discussions, editors have attempted discussion with the result of Sam Spade ignoring it, or simply stating his version is the right one (not a verbatim quote.)

A partial list of Sam's reversions to his (unsupported and biased) intro, and reversions of this by various editors to restore consensus version:
 * 17:08, 15 March 2006 Sam Spade (God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the vast majority ...
 * 17:25, 15 March 2006 Bikeable (rv "vast majority" addition by Sam Spade. we have been through this before on the Talk page; get consensus there before adding it back)
 * 10:22, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (intro)
 * 10:25, 17 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (rv deliberate flouting of consensus, thoroughly discussed on talk page, with 100% support)
 * 11:18, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv, read the talk page)
 * 16:19, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (replacing dead cite w 2 working ones)
 * 17:35, 17 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (Returning to consensus version per talk. The US is not the world.)
 * 19:50, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (don't remove cited information)
 * 19:55, 17 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv to Consensus version.)
 * 19:58, 17 March 2006 Sam Spade (Do not delete cited information. Do not claim false consensus.)
 * 20:02, 17 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv, Sam you are the only editor who supports that version.)
 * 20:22, 18 March 2006 Sam Spade (God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority
 * 20:57, 18 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv Sam going against consensus again.)
 * 10:58, 19 March 2006 Sam Spade (there is no consensus, join the talk page discussion) :note: Misleading edit summary: this is in spite of the fact that Sam had not participated in talk page discussion since at least 6 editors agreed his intro was POV and inaccurate.
 * 11:48, 19 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (Sam, this American-centric POV pushing which insults over half the inhabitants of this planet needs to stop...
 * 16:06, 21 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore intro)
 * 16:50, 21 March 2006 Bikeable (rv Sam Spade's intro to last by 205.213.111.51)
 * 17:06, 22 March 2006 Sam Spade (intro)
 * 17:13, 22 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (You do not have support for your personal preferred intro, Sam. It is biased.)
 * 09:38, 23 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv vandal) :note: Misleading edit summary
 * 14:03, 23 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv misleading edit that put the correct picture back but also made Sam's prefered modifications. Sam please don)
 * 12:29, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (monothists are not the only worshippers of God, Henotheists, pantheists, etc...) Note: despite edit summary, this is the same revert to Sam's preferred, unsupported intro
 * 12:30, 27 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (They don't worship the singular supreme deity who is the subject of this article.)
 * 12:52, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (The people I cited do)
 * 16:27, 27 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (Sam, you failed to make your case on talk for "majority" which in any case is not relevent - this is for INFORMATION, its not a POPULARITY CONTEST among deities)
 * 16:34, 27 March 2006 Sam Spade (removing cited, relavant information borders on vandalism, don't do it again)
 * 16:36, 27 March 2006 JoshuaZ (rv, Sam the vast majority of editors disagree with you, if anyone is vandalizing here, its you. cut it out.)
 * 16:43, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade (restore cited info)
 * 16:44, 29 March 2006 KillerChihuahua m (Reverted edits by Sam Spade (talk) to last version by Tawkerbot2)
 * 16:46, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade (explain yourself on the talk page, revert warring w/o discussion can result in banning)
 * 16:48, 29 March 2006 KillerChihuahua (I've explained, Bikeable's explained, there must be six explanations of why an inaccurate, American-centric intro is unsupported on this article. Don't threaten me with banning for reverting your POV)
 * 19:25, 29 March 2006 Sam Spade (rv crypto-vandalism)
 * 19:44, 29 March 2006 Dbachmann (the intro is not the place for demographic bickering. If at all, use &lt;ref&gt;.)
 * 18:53, 2 April 2006 Sam Spade (citations in the format requested)
 * 18:54, 2 April 2006 JoshuaZ (rv, do not give misleading edit summaries)
 * 18:55, 2 April 2006 Sam Spade (what the heck? look at what I did, and what I said.)
 * 18:59, 2 April 2006 Cyde (Sam, please see WP:NPOV)
 * 20:03, 2 April 2006 Sam Spade (restore)
 * 20:06, 2 April 2006 JoshuaZ (Sam, this has been discussed on the talk page now multiple times.)
 * 20:29, 3 April 2006 Sam Spade (restore cited intro)
 * 20:42, 3 April 2006 JoshuaZ (Sam, this is the consensus version. many more editors favor this version, quite POV pushing)
 * 22:13, 3 April 2006 Sam Spade (it is indeed quite POV pushing when you revert w/o discussion) Note: misleading edit summary. Sam has not discussed; others have, multiple times.
 * 13:36, 4 April 2006 KillerChihuahua (Sam, did you even read dab's post? You have no consensus; you have no support for your US-centric, inaccurate intro) Note: this is in reference to a talk page edit made shortly before Sam Spade's reversion in which dab attempted to discuss the edits; to which Sam Spade did not respond. Secondary note: I inadvertantly reverted some valid edits with this revert, which I restored in my next edit.

Please note a total of 27 reversions within the period from 15 March through 4 April to a version Sam Spade had been reverting to for some time previous (older history left out due to space constraints here.) During that same time period, Sam Spade made a total of 10 edits to the talk page, of which one was wiki-linking the word deity, one was modifying that link, two were minor phrasing edits, and one a spelling correction. This leaves five edits of substance, none of which involve Sam Spade discussing his edits other than to post brief statements in which he does not address anyone's concerns about the version of the intro he continually reverts to.


 * 2006/03/16 06:50:14 Talk:God (Intro bias)
 * 2006/03/17 10:25:24 Talk:God (/* "vast majority" */)
 * 2006/03/17 19:53:05 Talk:God (/* "vast majority" */)
 * 2006/03/27 16:40:22 Talk:God (monotheism, majority, and the value of citations)
 * 2006/03/27 16:44:38 Talk:God (/* monotheism, majority, and the value of citations */)
 * 2006/04/03 20:31:49 Talk:God (/* monotheism, majority, and the value of citations */)

On 4 April 2006, at 17:52, Infinity0 stated on Talk:God that an Rfc on Sam Spade had begun; and his POV-pushing, unsupported, incredibly badly sourced, US-centric misleading edits ceased, as did his personal attacks on those who did not support his version. This is a problem not a good thing. Sam Spade tends to fade quietly into the background when the spotlight is on him; limiting himself to astonishing (to those who have recently witnessed him in action) statements of neutrality, reason, and AGF, then after attention turns from him, he returns unabashed to his disruptive, high-handed arrogant treatment of other editors, inserting his preferred POV against consensus, against evidence (sources), against policy, and against all efforts to discuss with him any modification of his preferred version. Please note the pattern above of revert warring, waiting a few days, then revert warring again. I am deeply concerned that Sam Spade has no intention of modifying his behavior at all, and is merely biding his time until this "blows over." I could easily put together evidence of a similar pattern for Human, or very likely for any article which Sam Spade has taken a strong interest in editing.

Note that this has been going on for considerably longer than the span given in the diffs list.

Sam Spade edit wars at Human
Sam has been edit warring on Human for some time. I will make free to paste a post made on Sam Spade's most recent Rfa to illustrate:
 * 1) His ownership of articles such as human (this is the only page where i have intereacted with Sam) leads to distinctly dubious edits.
 * 20:23, 9 February 2006 (rv, changes complete unacceptable)
 * Response: (Was it correcting the spelling errors you object to, or the removal of POV, or the factual corrections?)
 * 04:30, 10 February 2006 (rv over-riding bias, article needs protected)
 * Response: (Perhaps you'd care to participate in Talk, and explain what you think is biased, rather than doing a wholesale reversion of edits?)
 * 12:25, 10 February 2006 (rv bias)
 * Response: (Sam these knee jerk reverts are getting tedious. You are reverting some good edits with this blanket revert. If you think biased edits have been made can you revert those ones specifically.).

There are multiple other links and complaints of POV pushing, edit warring, ad homenim attacks against those who do not agree with him, and failure to even attempt to discuss edits on that Rfa as well as his previous Rfa.

More recently, Sam Spade has edit warred on Human, primarily over the intro. By 23 March 2006, the editors on the page had reduced the varying opinions to three intros, and a straw vote was held. The tally was two editors for version 1, nine (now 11) editors for version 2, and one editor for version 4. Sam's was version 4. Goethean supported version 1, along with Schwael. The other 9 editors supported version 2. Other versions had been dropped from consideration. See Talk:Human. This did not deter Sam Spade from repeatedly re-inserting his preferred intro, as usual with misleading edit summaries. Sam made 27 edits to Human during the month of March, 2006. Six of those were adding an NPOV tag, which he added specifically because he felt the strongly supported intro was POV, while his preferred intro, supported only by him, was NPOV. Several times he claimed consensus in his edit summary. Once he accused another editor of lying. Once he called the strongly supported intro "offensive." Most of the remaining edits made by Sam Spade to Human during March were reversions to his preferred intro and edit warring in the Spirit section. One edit was not edit warring in the intro, against consensus, or the Spirit/Spirituality section, also against consensus, or adding the NPOV tag.
 * 3/14/2006 21:00	(The word Human has biological, social, and spiritual meanings. Biologicaly Humans (Homo sapiens) are bipedal primates of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the)
 * 3/14/2006 22:29
 * 3/15/2006 17:04	(restore intro)
 * 3/16/2006 6:12	(either we have a neutral intro, or a dispute header)
 * 3/17/2006 11:24	(restore intro)
 * 3/17/2006 15:22	(please don't misuse the term "consensus")
 * Note: this is in response to my edit of 13:52, 17 March 2006, summary "(Restoring intro which actually has been discussed and has support on Talk; Sam, why don't you work with us instead of ignoring talk, consensus, and blindly reverting?)"
 * 3/18/2006 12:27	(restgore the closest thing to a consensus intro we have, the FA intro)
 * 3/18/2006 19:52	(rv, the article needs to be neutral, or have a dispute header, end of story)
 * 3/18/2006 20:00
 * 3/21/2006 11:00
 * 3/21/2006 15:32 (remove offensive intro) Note: The "offensive" intro is the one which has support of nine editors. The version Sam is replacing it with has the support of one, Sam Spade.
 * 3/21/2006 15:54	(, read talk page before lying)  Full disclosure: Sam was accusing me of lying. My edit summary had been Reverting Sam's disruptive continuation of pushing a microscopically minority view, while continuing to refuse to discuss with others on Talk
 * 3/22/2006 17:03
 * 3/23/2006 17:45	(new compromise intro) Note: this is not a compromise, but Sam restoring the first paragraph of his preferred intro
 * 3/23/2006 23:11	(rv)
 * 3/23/2006 23:15	(good grief, read consensus, will ya?)  Note: This is in response to JushuaZ's edit of  23:13, 23 March 2006 Summary: "(Sam, this is the consensus version, quit it.)"
 * 3/24/2006 17:52	(new compromise intro)  Note: Again, not a compromise, again, not discussed on Talk. Again, simply Sam re-inserting the first paragraph of his preferred intro.
 * 3/24/2006 17:54	(capitalisation, wl)  Note: Accurate summary. This is a productive edit.
 * 3/24/2006 18:01	(restore spirit) Note: This is edit warring on the Spirit or Spirituality section. Followed immediately by Jossi reverting, edit summary "restoring previous version"
 * 3/25/2006 0:05	(revert)  Note: partial revert of intro to Sam's unsupported version
 * 3/26/2006 21:04	(?Society and culture - spirit)  Note: Sam reverts again on Spirit/Spirituality
 * 3/27/2006 11:47	(revgert, stuffed down at the bottom is as compromising as its gonna get)  Note: Same revert as twice before, Sam reverting to his preferred treatment of Spirit/Spirituality
 * 3/27/2006 17:23	(restore spirit section)
 * 3/28/2006 10:01	(restore full intro)  Note: and Sam's back to reverting to his unsupported intro
 * 3/28/2006 10:04	(?Spirituality and religion - restore full section (while respecting Dab's placement compromise))
 * 3/29/2006 16:38	(restore compromise version) Note: Again, not a compromise. This time Sam replaces entire intro, not merely first paragraph. He also added an NPOV tag.
 * 3/29/2006 16:45

These edits by Sam Spade are only for the month of March, 2006. The three edits and the summaries of responses from his second Rfa above are from February, 2006. These are two small segments in a war Sam Spade has been waging to promote his own POV on that article since at least May of 2005 and very possibly since March of 2005.

Sam Spade violates NPA
Sam Spade regularly violates NPA. His attacks are usually vague enough and not virulent enough to prompt anyone to do anything about them; he uses them as a counter-attack method when his edits are questioned, challenged, or disagreed with, which IMHO is more subtle and causes more damage. The targets of his ad hominem attacks must either ignore them or switch gears to attempt to defend themselves, which changes the focus of the discussion from Sam's edits to their character and/or motives. He frequently uses edit summaries which call restoration of the consensus version of a page "vandalism," thus calling the other editor a vandal.

Evidence presented by Mel Etitis
[In progress.]

Sam Spade harasses and bullies editors away from articles
As was pointed out in the initial request for arbitration, one of the main problems is that S.S., by his hectoring manner and persistent misbehaviour, drives people out of articles that he's taken over. This means that many of those who have experienced his behaviour and would want to add their voices here have no recent evidence. Even those of us who are not reluctant to persist with the defence of the quality of articles are eventually worn down. My evidence, therefore, is largely antique &mdash; but I believe that it establishes that S.S. has been behaving in the same way for a long time &mdash; that this is no recent aberration. (Also, much of my evidence would overlap with that of other editors above.)

Sam Spade edits against consensus
Sam Spade has a history of going against community consensus, defending vandalistic and disruptive edits when they fit his personal views and interests. For example, after a long Vfd debate, the article Conscious Evolution was deleted, the consensus being that it should go completely, with no redirect. Shortly afterwards, a "new" user (4.250.138.88 (I believe all these edits are mine WAS 4.250 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)) recreated it (as his ninth edit) with a redirect to Transhumanism. When it was blanked, S.S. recreated it, and when an admin removed it, S.S. put it back again (see a discussion with SlimVirgin from S.S.'s Talk page, and SlimVirgin's explanation to me ). (Retrieved from User talk:Mel Etitis/Forum &mdash; a page, long abandoned, at which I began collecting evidence of S.S.'s misbehaviour.)

Sam Spade has a habit of avoiding discussion
His ownership of articles such as human leads to distinctly dubious edits. KillerChihuahua has already mentioned (above), and added to, the edits i contributed to the RfC that show examples of Sam's reverts to his favored versions without discussion (in this case the introduction of the article human). In some of these reverts perfectly good corrections to grammar were also lost. He typically behaved in this way despite serious and active discussion continuing on the talk page which he barely acknowledged.

When he does participate in the discussions his usual tactic is to ignore valid questions, go off on tangents, often with an ad hom agenda (as pointed out above by Bishoen), or be flippant, for example "A skull would be pretty cool actually. So would a naked chic ;)" (Source).

He even ignored valid questions in his own RfC or tried to deflect them by suggesting the RfC was out of process.

Sam Spade thinks the majority are subjective
Sam often justifys his edits by saying that the majority is usually wrong. This is counter to the wikipedia philosophy of consensus building and it is one of his habits that gets him into hot water with other editors. Previously, I have suggested to him that as an editor he should "not tell the majority that they are wrong but persuade the majority that he is correct" (Source), but this fell on deaf ears as there was no response or change in his editing habits. Sam operates as if all his own edits are objective while everyone elses are subjective. I think he really does believe this to be true but is another example of a behaviour that gets him into hot water with the other editors at wikipedia.

Sam Spade edits against consensus at Human
An example of Sam editing against the consensus in the human article is with regard to the FBI mugshot photo. He cited consensus on the human talk page for the inclusion of this picture, despite the fact that many different editors favoured its removal from the article.

On 18 January 2006 Digitalseal removes FBI mugshot picture.

On 18 January Sam Spade reverts with the following edit summary ''(rv, new images not an improvement over the FBI mugshots)

On 23 January Digitalseal removed again.

On 24 January Sam Spade reverts with the edit summary of ''(restore image)

On 29 January BorisFromStockdale remove image ''(I am removing the offensive and poorly done Image)

On 30 January Sam Spade reverts ''(FBI identifies fugitives by sex, physical features, occupation, nationality, and race. From left)

On 10 February Krsont compromises ''(re-added "five races" pic - it is pretty much nonsense; but it is one notable view. It's also a much better pic than the FBI thing.)

On 10 February Jim62sch removes FBI mugshot ''(I can live with the Coon pic - I suppose as an example of stupidity, but one pic is enough for this section. Thus, the FBI pic can go.)

On10 February 2006 Sam Spade reverts ''(rv over-riding bias, article needs protected)

On 10 February 2006 KillerChihuahua removes FBI mugshot ''(Perhaps you'd care to participate in Talk, and explain what you think is biased, rather than doing a wholesale reversion of edits?)

On 19 February 2006 Sam Spade reverts ''(restore image)

On 22 February 2006 KillerChihuahua ''(Bold part II, taking out FBI image)

In this sequence of edits four different editors have removed the FBI mugshot and it has been replaced each time by Sam. Other editors have voiced their objection to the mugshots in the talk pages:: see talk page discussion 1, see talk page discussion 2. No one, other than Sam, was in favour of the picture and yet he edit warred on it for over a month.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.