Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Old

I would like the arbitration committee to look into the issue of Sam Spade. He has a long history of inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV (see Talk:Gay bathhouse and the histories of Racial hygiene and Adolf Hitler for further examples), and this may be a test case of the scope of NPOV really means. Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to present every view? Before answering quickly, think whether we have to present a defense of Nazism or a justification of the Matthew Shephard murder just to ensure neutrality. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a soapbox where every Internet kook and extremist can make their statements under a veneer of legitimacy--after all, it's in the encyclopedia? I hope you choose to take up this case. Danny 10:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my complaint against Sam Spade. I think it is unnecessary, and that a modus vivendi with Sam is possible. I would also ask that no one cites me as a reason to complain against Sam. This does not mean that I agree with everything Sam does, but that I believe that with patience and good will we can find common ground to cooperate. Danny 01:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Some facts regarding my issue w Danny

Sam [Spade] 11:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd request that this case be heard - not necessarily with any eye towards sanctions against Sam (I'm neutral at best on that subject), but with an eye towards the questions regarding NPOV that Danny brings up. NPOV is a tremendously elusive policy, and could use clarification. Particular points of clarification that I'd like to see include whether every view needs to be represented, and on what pages opposing views need to be represented. (My usual example is that creationism is mentioned on Evolution but not on Punctuated equilibrium). So I think a lot could be done with this. As for the Gay bathhouse article, though I disagree with Sam on this article, I think that it hasn't gone through enough of the dispute resolution process as of yet. Maybe there's something to be said for a case against Sam in general, across a number of articles. But I'm agnostic on that. I just want NPOV clarified. :) Snowspinner 15:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Gay bathhouse, Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse, User talk:Exploding Boy and User talk:OwenBlacker. &mdash; OwenBlacker 11:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Question - has there been a RfC? or formal mediation? Is Danny saying that Sam Spade is "an internet kook and extremist" because if he is not then I object the AC getting involved. Content issues should be decided by the community and not the AC. A RfC would let the community have a voice, which may well sort out the problems.theresa knott 12:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue regarding Gay bathhouse has been listed on RfC and Peer review for around 10 days now and all attempts at mediation have failed. No formal mediation has been taken (and I mooted doing that within the last 24 hours), but I don't actually think it'd help, as I don't believe it'd have any different effect to the less formal mediation &mdash; the differences appear to be too intractable. &mdash; OwenBlacker 13:28, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * But what about a a RfC on Sam Spade's "inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV"? It is Sam Spade who is being referred to the AC not the Gay bathhouse article.theresa knott 13:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's perfectly reasonable. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems the next step would be a poll, followed by mediation (begging the question again, between whom?) and then arbitration. The current request is too vague and hasn't followed the clearly delineated guidelines, and much as I admit I'm secretly happy to see Sam get in trouble (because I'm 5 years old...), it's not fair if the proper procedure is not followed, so I reluctantly object to this request. Exploding Boy 13:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would, however, support a Request For Comment. Exploding Boy 13:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see the Gay bathhouse issue go to formal mediation rather than arbitration, but I'm not sure a poll is worthwhile, given the lack of interest from people not already involved in the discussion resulting from the listings on RfC and Peer review. I'm relatively easy, tbh, as long as it's something more than the repetitive arguments we've been having for the last coupla weeks. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems Peer Review and RFC never produce any results, but we've got to follow the procedure, right? Besides, yet again, who would this mediation be between? Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair point. I would assume, in the context of Danny's complaint, it would have to be between the two individuals; in the context of Gay bathhouse, I'd guess an advocate for the article becoming FA (you? me?) and Sam. OwenBlacker 13:50, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much about the article being FA, though I really believe that Sam's motivation, in part, was to prevent that. It's about adding a NPOV dispute message to a page with no good reason and then basically leaving that page in limbo. Exploding Boy 14:08, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the two in combination, as one would assume that anyone advocating the article being FA would also want the NPOV dispute resolved. OwenBlacker 14:18, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy to forget the whole thing if he just removed his dispute and left that article alone. Exploding Boy 14:27, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Official policy states, "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help." Mediation is not a prerequisite; the Committee need ask for it only if it is likely to produce results&mdash;they need not do so merely for the sake of form. It would appear, based on the above comments, that mediation is unlikely to help. Therefore, I find myself in support of the request for arbitration. -- Emsworth 17:32, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Additional information on recent behavior by Sam Spade
Although voting has started, I would like to second this request after some behavior and activity by Sam Spade over the last day that was, IMHO, counterproductive. In short, Sam interfered (although that may be slightly too strong of a word) in the work of the Mediation Committee in the case of User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL, and managed to short circuit a process that seemed to be moving forward smoothly and without recrimination, resulting in AndyL declining mediation after initiating the process (see this version of Requests for mediation). For more info please also see this version of my talk page. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The above is based on this. I feel that I acted properly in providing User:Herschelkrustofsky with that advice, and also feel I acted properly in scolding User:Bcorr regarding this incident. Sam [Spade] 20:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request
I would request that a decision be made to hear this case, yea or nay, as expeditiously as possible. It has been here over a month, and is already beginning to be used to malign my character. I wouldn't mind the opportunity to discuss violations of No personal attacks and civility in the prominent and public format that an arbitration of this would provide, but this is not a particularly good case of it. While User:Danny has used foul language in the past, and IMO has been uncivil at times, my problems with him are fairly minimal, and largely amount to his apparent unwillingness to converse with myself. I see nothing that either of us has done regarding one another that could possibly result in a sanction from the community or committee, and would find a bit of advice from the arbiters on our respective talk pages regarding our conduct more advantageous than the time consuming and apparently unnecessary trial requested by User:Danny and others. A referral to mediation may be fortuitous as well. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators

 * Accept:
 * mav 23:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I would like to explore the NPOV issue - esp the aspect where a single user can unilaterally put a dispute notice on a page. I don't think that is useful. Nor do I think that including every POV in an article is at all desirable. Consensus should drive the process, not unilateral action (which is currently supported by at least one interpretation of policy - I think we really need to clarify this issue).
 * Fred Bauder 03:55, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Refuse:
 * I don't think determining the fine details of NPOV is in our jurisdiction. We're a judiciary, not a legislature.  I largely agree with Maveric's opinion above that the subject is interesting; I disagree that we few, we overworked few, we band of arbiters are the proper ones to issue an edict on the subject. --the Epopt 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain or other:
 * I'm not sure. It seems to be, really, a combination of an inter-personal disupute (that I think hasn't escalated to the point where we're needed or would really be all that helpful) and a lack-of-policy point (i.e., exactly how much dissent is required for 'consensus' to be broken and NPOV declared un-reached); we aren't here to write policy, merely judge it, and I don't think that there's sufficient ground-work for us to make a judgment that is likely to be a fair reflection of the overall community's opinion. Perhaps we should form a semi-formal Polcy Committee, and refer this to that? James F. (talk) 01:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Like James, I'm not sure. Mav above suggests that we should rule to change current practice regards NPOV disputes - I don't think we're allowed to do that: rather wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute should be used. Ditto the inclusion of extreme views to wikipedia talk:neutral point of view. We're allowed to rule on the status quo, but I doubt that's what Danny desires. Not sure about the personal element, though. Martin 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)