Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sam Spade/Detective agency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Context

[edit]

Why would Sam create such a page?

[edit]

Why would EB oppose Sam in creating such a page?

[edit]

Radiant_* 15:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

My opposition to this page and this organization has nothing to do with the articles above, as Sam claims. I think I've made my reasons quite clear. See: here for details.
In particular, I'm concerned about this quote, taken from the introduction to the relevant page: "We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place."
What does this mean? At best Sam et. al. are making preemptive assumptions about Wikipedia users. Assuming guilt or indeed, creating a list of "dubious persons" is inappropriate behaviour for an AMA Advocate. If Sam feels "overwhelmed with the amount of requests for assistance he recieves" (a claim I find highly "dubious," given the suspicion with which he's widely viewed), perhaps he should consider taking a break, or, alternatively, perhaps the AMA needs to recruit more advocates. Exploding Boy 15:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Added: I also object to the stated requirements for "membership" in the organization, which include a desire and willingness to "prosecute" "problem users" and to "assist and protect fellow detectives, lay users and anons," and to the fact that Sam appears to be farming out AMA work to non-AMA members. Really, if Sam's so busy the simple solution is to decline to take on further cases. If this is an "extension" of Sam's AMA activities, as he claims on the relevant page, then this organization should be sanctioned and its activities monitored by the AMA, and membership should be limited to current AMA members. Exploding Boy 15:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at my talk page and its archives for evidence of such requests. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's Detective Agency's record so far

[edit]

1. If this is any indication, Sam's agency is off to the sad start I and others were concerned about. Sam continues to rub salt in the wound left by his vulgar email by insisting on making it a subject of "investigation" of his ill conceived "Detective Agency" despite the facts that I did not actually ask him to take the matter up and that I've now asked him to cease several times yet he refuses to drop it [3] [4]. This is going exactly like I feared. --FeloniousMonk 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the anti lot want to stop Sam's organisation. I believe they just want to stop other wiki users from monitoring it. Please show me any evidence to the contrary, --SqueakBox 16:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
What kind of evidence would you suggest..? — Asbestos | Talk 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Its less complicated than that, they simply dislike me, and feel the need to waste everybodies time w personality politics. I don't think there is any evidence to the contrary. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I dislike is Sam's misbehavior, not Sam. That behavior is a matter record here at wikipedia for anyone to discover despite Sam's hypocritical claim that there is no evidence of it. One need only look and the list of evidence compiled here for a start. There is listed links to the record showing Sam's admitted to intentionally exploiting a policy loophole so he could side-step the civility policy, cynically starting a frivolous "copyvio" claim, etc. There's also the matter of his less than sterling record of his previous user account, JackLynch.
As for why I choose to confront Sam when he acts badly, call me old fashioned, but I still believe that when you wrong somebody, you have a moral obligation to atone for it. It's called justice. A quaint notion, I know. I also believe that hypocrisy always demands a response, and for anyone inclined to chafe at hypocrisy Sam's own words yield plenty of opportunities. I state here why I believe trolls and miscreants should be confronted. If Sam finds an occasional zen slap inconvenient, then he should moderate his future behavior and atone for his past misdeeds instead of just digging his hole deeper. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In either case, if you have a problem with Sam's actions, ther proper channel is to create an RFC, not to delete their User pages. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I endorse DropDeadGorgias view, --SqueakBox 18:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

2. Another instance of Sam Spade's Detective Agency's bad bahavior, this time Sam making a trollish and untrue claim: [5]

3. One more instance of bad behavior at Sam Spade's Detective Agency. As pointed out in the link I provide above in no. 2, on the agency's discussion page Sam intentionally mischaracterized a statement I posted to the "I don't like your page, will you remove it?" section by moving it to a new section he titles "I don't like Sam Spade, what should I do?" The the net effect of mischaracterizing my statement is to imply that the cause of my actions are not prompted by his insulting email he sent me, but because I simply dislike him. Thus he attempts to deflect a legitimate complaint by marginalizing it. As I've said before, I dislike Sam's behavior, not the man. Next Sam trollishly reverted my rebuttal: [6] Clearly if Sam is going to make oblique commentary on my personal motives, I'm entitled to a rebuttal. If he's going to start right off by denying me that right, who else then is going to find themselves denied the right to confront their accusers when and where the accusation is made? This sort of behavior by Sam is exactly what must be guarded against when he forms an unsanctioned, organized, evidence-gathering group. Only those investigated under the PATRIOT Act are allowed less recourse for rebuttal than those who find themselves on Sam Spade's Detective Agency's pages it seems. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instances of editors comments deleted from User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency

[edit]
  1. [7]
  2. [8]

observation

[edit]

On Oct 7, 2004 on [this page] Exploding Boy says "I take issue with this type of sweeping yet vague pronouncement. Who are these "frequent rule breakers" you speak of? Who are these admins, this so-called "in-crowd" who "are of the opinion that admins are above the rules"? Who are these users who "bully and malign" newbies? Who are these "well-liked longterm regulars who do as they please while the community looks the other way"? Sorry, but I think this is all a load of codswallop, as my grandmother used to say.

I've read a lot, over the last year, of complaints like these, but have yet to see any credible evidence that anything like this is really going on. I do know of a few users who are less than collegiate with other users, and a few people who like to grandstand and/or behave as though they own certain articles, but generally other users managage to keep them contained. I don't know of any admin who has gone on the type of rampage you suggest above, and frankly, I think this is just a lot of hot air designed to help you in your bid for sysopping. That's fair enough; you're allowed to campaign on your own behalf. But if you're going to slander 20-odd users (the ones who've voted against you) then you'd better be prepared to back up your wild claims with some hard evidence."

On Sam's looking for hard evidence page Sam says "Our goal is to provide top-notch investigative service to our clients, promote justice and discourage corruption, and to combine our efforts as effectively as possible. We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place."

Is it ok to thank Boy for giving Sam this idea? 4.250.27.74 19:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's another observation. 4.250.27.74 has made a grand total of 5 edits to Wikipedia, and 2 of them are on this issue. I'm forced to wonder whether s/he is part of Sam's Army, posting anonymously to avoid being identified. Getting involved in this type of debate, and showing such easy familiarity with Wikipedia is suspicious for a brand new (started in April) user. I can see (and this user's post demonstrates clearly) the vast potential for abuse inherent in Sam's organization.
Here's another observation. The role of the AMA is supposed to be advocating on behalf of members. They do not exist to be some sort of Wiki-CIA, gathering information on suspect users in an effort to crush them. They do not exist to protect a certain class of Wikipedians. They are suppsed to provide "a better understanding of the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process at any stage of a controversy, or really just for a clarification" (this according to their FAQ page). In fact, the more I read the AMA's pages, the more I think Sam's violating several of their principles.
At any rate, I can see this is going to go nowhere. I may proceed with an RFC, if only to get a better understanding of where Wikipedia stands on this issue. Exploding Boy 20:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Reading your post above, I'm unclear exactly what you think is and isn't "codswallop." I think what you are getting at here is that that are no instances of well-liked longterm regulars behaving trollishly while the powerful in the community looks the other way.
If that is that is what you meant, then one quick read of the evidence of Sam's own recent misdeeds and the related conversations, and noting the list of the influential contained therein who've not only excused Sam's bad acts but in so doing enabled them, stands as "hard evidence" to the contrary. --FeloniousMonk 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely why this so-called "agency" is problematic. The comments above were made months ago on an unrelated topic. They were placed here out of context and without explanation by a user I've never heard of or seen before, for no apparent reason. Exploding Boy 21:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Seemed rather an applicable display of the hypocracy involved in opposing my investigations, but hey, not everybody see's eye to eye on everything. Oh and the anon is obviously an old hand who chose to edit anonymously on this topic, his right according to the M:Foundation issues, which are kinda important... have a look sometime. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the right to edit anyonymously. I, along with many other users, oppose this. But that's beside the point. You're ignoring every important issue brought up in this discussion. Exploding Boy 16:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Most 4.250.xxx.xxx edits that I have run into are mine. I first ran into Sam on far-right. I'm currently trying to improve atheism (I'm an atheist. I believe Sam is a pantheism believer.) See mixed economy for me at my best and early edits on the discussion page of Jeff Gannon for me at my worst (too quick to anger). 4.250.132.149 17:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right on, I had no idea. Glad to have you, by any chance would you like to form a user account? Either way, please keep up the fine work. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency&oldid=1137424545"