Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence

Sam went silent[edit]

I have no idea which page is the proper one for a non-evidentiary view of things. There are three pages in the process? At any rate, I just want to express here what I did on Bishonen's user talk page: a repentence before the bar is not a repentence of the heart. After the RFC generated enormous and one-sided support against Sam's underlying behavior (unilateralism, failure to engage in dialogue, the persuance of a monopolistic POV, and repeated use of ad hominem to change the subject in a discussion from an article's edits to the character and imputed motives of editors), Sam went silent. Well, what I have observed, over and over again, is that the personal accusations that Sam launches lead to a battle of attrition, and well established editors simply avoid articles that Sam edits. Thus, new users with an interest in a political (usually) issue stumble into the mine field of Sam's "detective agency" "digging dirt" on his "opponents." They're shocked at the vitriol, get upset, act in a crazy way, and either get blocked (because they couldn't play the game and instead do something outlandish, and Sam assures everyone else that he's a long time user, whereas this person is a newbie) or wander off. Therefore, when Sam goes silent, people stop prosecuting, because they were never as motivated, never as bilious, as Sam was. They never wanted to "dig dirt" on him, never wanted to "get (them) blocked," never wanted to cut off the "hydra's head." They just wanted the articles to represent a more neutral or more balanced view, so all it takes is a temporary silence from Sam to see evidence gathering fizzle. The problem is that the other established users have seen this before (remember the Vancouver Skybridge and the boobies?). Sam has gone quiet before, and that has allowed him to keep coming back with the same inappropriate behavior. The objective of an RFar on Sam should not be "make Nazi mysticism look better!" or "make Human look better," but, rather, let's stop this bullying. Let's stop the ad hominems. Let's stop the needless and incessant attacks on character. Let's stop the paranoia. Geogre 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the essense of what you are saying is that Sam's current good behavior needs to be made permanent by one means or another, then I and many others agree with you. WAS 4.250 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the essence of it. More to the point, I'm worried that he's going to pretend that there is no case because he is temporarily stopping. The problem isn't temporary, so the solution can't be, either. Geogre 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my support for what Geogre says here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100% w/ Geogre here. Thanks a lot for your insightful comments throughout this case. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about limits[edit]

"Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs"... do the summaries in the diffs count as words? Or just what I wrote? The summaries are more important than the actual diffs, IMHO - it is basically, Sam reverts many times to a version only he supports and only he claims is NPO but the edit summaries show his attitude. I can re-work if necessary, I would appreciate some guidance here. I have never been a party to an Rfar before. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case WAS 4.250 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that essay. It lacks specifics which are helpful to this particular question. Thanks much, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like it's saying to keep it sorter than what you already have. Maybe ask Fred for a thumbs up or down on your current contribution's total size? (keeping in mind others have input also, Sam has not been lax in engaging people's emotions) WAS 4.250 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, perhaps I should leave the Inwork note at the top and think on it for a bit. It may be that others' evidence will make it clearer to me where I can trim. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AssassinDog, I'm pretty sure you're not asking the right question. I'd guess that it's more important for the evidence to be accessible-looking and cogent and clear than for it to be, by word-count, actually short. I can't believe the Arbs take any real interest in the 1000 limit or the 100 limit or in what counts as words; a better rule to focus on is surely the informal "please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise". Reading your evidence, let alone looking at it, ought not to make the Arbs cry; there's your rule of thumb. ;-)

So what about the way it looks now? With your brief summaries of each edit, it's easy and tempting to simply read straight through without clicking, and still get a very good notion of what happened. Perhaps reading it that way is to be encouraged? Then you'd still get the cumulative effect, just not get every edit. Is every edit equally valuable? Or do you think it would be OK to pick out the "best", most telling, edits by bolding their diffs, with a note at the top explaining about it? Bishonen | talk 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

For those of us who have been either engaged with Sam or just observing, the realities are painfully clear. Maybe simply asking arbcom what data they lack is in order (like the one on one at the supreme court?). To me, the one critical item is what will it take to get Sam to continue acting as he is now acting? and I am utterly clueless on that. WAS 4.250 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce)Bish: Yes, precisely. I feel it is the pattern of edits and summaries which conveys the issue far more strongly than the actual diffs. I almost didnt' bother the link the diffs, for that very reason. Its the self-rightous persistance of reverting to a completely unsupported version, while using edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" "rv to consensus" and similar summaries. No one edit or summary is more telling than the next, its the sheer repitition. In the NPA section I started I could pick and choose, but I have just about decided I simply don't have space/room for that. I could write a book... but I'm trying to keep it brief.

WAS: Um, where would I ask that?

I should mention that someone has suggested to me that I summarize, then add a link to the diffs lists. I fail to see how that materially reduces the reading, but I suppose it might reduce eyestrain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't more clear, but I was moving away from directly addressing you and moving towards thinking aloud. I was thinking someone might ask someone on arbcom exactly what they don't get yet. I feel like its raining and I can hear the rain and three people just walked in soaked and someone yells from the basement for evidence it is raining and I'm just wondering how much effort is needed for the obvious. WAS 4.250 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to be ~~meddlesome~~ helpful: Perhaps "Sam's adventures in Humanity include reversions [link] [diff] [diff] [diff] with edit summaries each implying vandalism by the community and perfection from him, ignoring pleas to read the talk page [diff] [diff] [diff] [diffyQ] with each suggesting that the talk page had a secret code endorsing him, outright lies in the summaries [diff] [diff] [[diffyQ] that each said that he was the prophet," etc., but, you know, I think what's there is fine.

I just got through grading 1085 essays, each that was supposed to be, "3-5 pages, or 750 - 1250 words." The little ~~buggers~~ darlings obsessed over the word count like I had some kind of digital eyeballs and didn't realize that what I want is a good essay, and I think that 3-5 pages is what it takes to make one, not that I wanted 3-5 pages and didn't care about the quality. One can only hope the page referred to above is along the same lines. Geogre 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I interpret it, speaking personally. We want enough evidence to make a good case, but not so much that it's painful to read. Parties presenting evidence don't have to detail every one of hundreds and hundreds of examples since after just a few, the pattern is obvious. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]