Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Former user (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 13 May 2004 (=Response=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Note: This page was opened 23:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC) and is not yet certified.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

  1. This user has repeatedly attacked User:Sam Spade. He has preserved and "protected" a mentioning of Sam Spade as being a "racist" on his page, then deleted Sam Spade's comments regarding it.
  2. Apparant inability to respect or comprehend NPOV policy
  3. This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning
  4. He has declined mediation in regards to this matter w Sam
  • Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
  1. Edit summary on User:Lord Kenneth (history): (Sam Spade other than being a racist troll-has a conflict of interest in reverting this page-thus there must be a policy consesus among legitimate users before the "wall of shame" can be taken down)
  2. From his talk page: -Sam is not African-american, he has sympathetic views towards white supremacy
  3. From Talk:Racialism which is the intention of white separatists like Spade and Vogel
  4. Edits to this page made by the user in question.
  5. Request for Admin Dispute described by many as Trolling
  1. Similar to above
  • Applicable policies:
  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. NPOV
  • Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
  1. Mediation declined
  2. Request for respect of policy declined
  3. Request for an end to harassment by outside user declined
  • Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Sam Spade 04:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  1. ugen64 16:31, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Unfortunetly Spade, (formally Jack Lynch) does have or at least has had racist views, as can be demonstrated on my talk page as he used a racial slur. Spade has also repeatedly defended others who espouse racists views such as Paul Vogel. He also vandalized and trolled my user page on many occasions which one can see from viewing the history. In the lordkeeneth situation Spade was trying to remove something from someone's user page without permission because it involved him.

I will continue to battle racist trolls like Sam Spade as I battled Vogel to keep wikipedia free from racist POV. In short, I will call a spade a spade.

Spade has made little to no attempt at compromise in fact he has engaged in a vandalism campaign against me. The best solution to the conflict would be if he would stop trolling my talk page.

I would find no reason to call sam racist if he stopped promoting a racist agenda, which has continually particularly when he tries to apologize or engage in disinformation campaigns as he has done in white seperatism and racialism.

I also would like to add that charge #2 is ridiculous. Please review my edit history to see that I can very well comprehend the NPOV policy. This is what the charge was till Sam dropped it mid-way into this thing, much like the way he dropped Vogel when he found out the wind was blowing the other way.


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. GrazingshipIV 04:30, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Although I believe that Grazingship has behaved childishly in this, I think that his intentions are good and beneficial to Wikipedia, and that no censure of any sort is appropriate. Snowspinner 05:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 172 05:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't know if Sam is racist but he does seem to spend a lot of time picking fights, holding grudges and acting out on them. Much of the problem seems to be that Sam made a comment on GrazingshipIV's talk page which he regrets and would like to disappear and Grazingship refuses to remove Sam's comment from his page. Sam shouldn't be removing material from someone else's talk page. That seems to be a more serious offence than anything Sam's accusing GrazingshipIV of having done. I suggest that both users refrain from commenting on each other's talk pages. However, I have to add that I reject the argument that someone who defends a racist must be a racist himself as a guilt by association fallacy. This is an especially dubious contention given the poor quality of Sam's advocacy on behalf of Vogel, a performance that would have had him disbarred had he actually been a lawyer. AndyL 06:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Bumm13 06:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Node 17:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Snowspinner, AndyL.[reply]
  7. Comrade Nick @)----^-, I Happen to think Grazingship is a good contibutor.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

  1. I think this dispute is most easily resolved if GrazingshipIV would remove the text that Sam finds offensive and Sam backs off. This is not, however, an endorsement of Sam, who has made several comments that I, at least, find contentious and sometimes offensive. I just don't think that Granzingship's strategy is the best way to deal with that. Danny 04:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. —No-One Jones 05:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 172 05:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Concur with Danny[reply]
  3. If he removed the statement (not the one I made BTW, I don't mind that) and refrained from accusing me of racism, etc.. I would find this matter resolved to my satisfaction. Sam Spade 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Since Grazingship clears material from his talk page regularly, remove both Sam's statement and Grazingship's comment, and end this dispute. --Michael Snow 17:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Second Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

  1. I think that both Sam and Grazingship have behaved childishly in this matter, and that they should both be hit upside the head, sharply. That said, typically one's own wishes are considered to be the guiding rule on one's own talk and user pages. Sam is known to bury things quickly on his page, making tracking down context and history difficult there too. Furthermore, I confess, I do find many of Sam's edits questionable, and I find him to be the Wikipedian I most often have a difficult time working with. I think that Grazingship is quite justified in feeling the frustration he feels towards Sam. I wish that he would find a more mature way of expressing it, however. That said, I also wish that Sam would stop provoking such frustration in people. And if I had to pick which of the two to get, I would pick Sam being less frustrating.
I firmly reject, however, the second charge, that Grazingship has difficulty with the concept of being NPOV. The charge seems ludicrous in the extreme, and I would like to see some evidence of it, lest the charge also be taken as a personal attack of its own. Snowspinner 05:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. —No-One Jones 05:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Third outside view: ignore this and let's get back to work!

I do not always agree with GrazingshipIV, but this page seems to be much-to-do-about-nothing. From my experiences, I never take Sam Spade's frequent campaigns on the request for comments pages seriously. As a user, Sam's work is rarely, if ever, informed and scholarly. Although he's usually at the center (or the source) of disputes over articles on politics, he rarely shows attempt toward serious scholarship that would stand up in one of my colleagues' political science classrooms. Because his end goal is contributing unencyclopedic content to an encyclopedia, he has been using intimidation to keep competent users from getting in his way. That's the real reason behind one passive aggressive campaign after another by Sam Spade on the requests for comments pages. When I tried to stop him from mucking up articles on fascism with his wacky extreme libertarian POV fiction, Sam Spade cooked up one of his many ad hominem attack campaigns against me. And BTW, this works. Speaking for myself, I don't have the patience to deal with him, and I just ignore him and the serious damage he is doing to article after article.

Until a more credible user steps forward with complaints about GrazingshipIV, let's leave him alone, ignore this bullshit, get back to work. 172 05:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. AndyL 06:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —No-One Jones 06:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth outside view

Both users are trolls. Grazingship has also maintained from the first day that he appeared here that I vandalized his User page, and has refused to provide proof, to retract the allegation, or to apologize. RickK 05:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Comment:

(Not a statement of support/opposition to any summary) I'm not familiar enough with GrazingshipIV's entire user history, but if one considers him a troll, he's a friendly troll. Sam Spade is a mean troll plotting against his 'enemies' at every step (e.g., aside from me, there's Danny and John). In contrast, I've never seen GrazingshipIV deliberatively act in a spiteful and vindicate way. If he's pissing someone off, he's just acting rashly at the whim of the moment. From my experiences, it's the passive aggressive trolls (e.g., Lir and his dozens of incarnations, Sam Spade, Veriverily, Cantus, and Jor) you have to watch out for. 172 05:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
(Not a statement of support/opposition to any summary) No proof or evidence has been presented to back up this claim of Grazingship maintaining RicKK is a vandal. Without proof, this user is smearing Grazingship's good name.172.193.147.211 18:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GrazingshipIV&oldid=3556598"