Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sam Spade and Exploding Boy
Inter-user conflict (see talk). No mediator chosen yet (not even clear that both parties want mediation). This user has sought out opportunities to conflict with me since I opposed his nomination of "Gay Bathhouse" for FA status some time ago. Unfortunately, due to Ed Poor's tragic mishandling of the situation (Talk:Anti-gay_slogan/Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log/Sam_Spade/User_talk:Ed_Poor/user_watch), things have gotten considerably worse.
Now, we have a blocked page, no progress in sight, and a friendly user offering to mediate. Why am I here? Because EB wants somethig formal and official. I'd like it if you could deputize User:Grace_Note to officially mediate, or at least could steer us towards a process somewhat more expediant than what I found here. Oh, and for the love of God, please keep Ed Poor from stirring the pot. Thank you, Sam Spade 13:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, I find this entire post highly offensive. To begin with, the whole thing constitutes a spurious attack, not to mention a series of lies.
- 1. Ed Poor had nothing to do with the gay bathhouse issue ([FAC nomination]) (in which Sam was in the wrong, let it be stated formally); he did get involved in the anti-gay slogan issue, in which again Sam was in the extreme minority in his views, and was trying to add misinformation that all other editors disagreed with, not just me, as a brief perusal of the relevant talk page will demonstrate easily.
- 2. The link Sam provides here is truly bizarre, as it's (A) nothing to do with the gay bathhouse article and (2), far from showing that I'm attacking Sam it demonstrates that, in spite of my vehemently disagreeing with Sam's views I opposed Ed's proposal to block Sam...
- 3. This link doesn't even have anything to do with me; it's a sub page of Ed's user page where he evidently keeps a list of problem users; surprise; Sam's on it.
- To summarize so far: Sam is here attempting to make a link between his opposition to the gay bathhouse article (on the grounds that it is an "inherently objectionable topic," by the way, grounds that are not actionable according to Featured Articles rules, and in which he was in the extreme minority, with a vast majority of uninvolved users disagreeing with his position) and our later conflicts. I have repeatedly told him that that conflict is over and done with and has nothing to do with later disagreements; Sam is the one who can't seem to let it go.
- The blocked page Sam mentions (the Anal sex article) was blocked as a result of Sam's problem edits, because an admin got tired of seeing us revert each other. Sam refused to discuss his edits for over a week after the page was protected, and when he finally did come back he still failed to address any of the issues. Oh, and this link really begs the question: how many times has Sam been involved in mediation, informal or formal, on Wikipedia?
- I have serious doubts about Sam's reasons for requesting mediation in this case, so I'm as yet undecided about whether to accept. In particular I'm deeply suspicious of any mediation attempt that begins with an assertion that it is being undertaken as a prelude to arbitration., and in addition I have grave doubts as to whether mediation with Sam will accomplish anything.
- Oh, and I should add that Sam and I have attempted what I suppose would be called "informal mediation" before, on the gay bathhouse article (the text is still available spread over several archives pages of the article's talk page) and it went nowhere, largely because Sam refused to address anybody else's concerns. In the words of an impartial observer: "the impression I have received, solely from reading the discussion on the FAC subpage, is that Sam is uncomfortable with the subject matter . . . and objects to the article becoming FAC. It seems to me (and I apologise if I'm mistaken, I'm merely documenting the inferences I've made from reading the discussion) that the latter stems from the former. Personally, I think it's a very well written article about a subject no less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than any other. I still support the bid for FA status and I do not believe that this article is anything other than NPOV" and, on another page: "as it still strikes me that Sam Spade is the only user who has any serious objection to the article and my opinion is that those objections are entirely based on the subject matter" (original posts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gay_bathhouse/Archive_2 here] and here). Exploding Boy 15:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The situation that Ed mishandled was your hysterical persecution of myself on Talk:Anti-gay_slogan, his talk page, and since then... He had (and continues to have, to my knowledge) nothing to do w gay bathouses, but he did make such a mess of things that a Mötley Crüe (including your own illustrious personage) came to my defense. The extent of your closure on the subject is made clear in some detail above, so I won't elaborate further. Suffice to say we could use some assistance from a neutral party, and I for one accept User:Grace_Note's generous offer, as does the blocking admin. Sam Spade 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Hysterical"? "Persecution"? Get a grip. Exploding Boy 22:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't do this, guys. Fighting on the mediation request page is too much for my poor old irony meters.
- EB, please give it a try. We won't be starting with an "assertion". I outlined the parameters we could all agree to. This is a process designed to avoid further steps in the dispute resolution process, not to encourage them.
- I understand your concerns about lack of structure. But "informal" does not mean "unstructured". Give it a chance. Take Sam's willingness in good faith and have a go. If it breaks down, you can at least say you tried and failed and I will give an honest account of what I think happened. I really do think the issues on this particular page can be resolved. Yes, you both have biases, very clearly so, but we have to believe that it's possible to put them aside. Allow faith to be shattered rather than not have it at all! Grace Note 03:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine, although I must inform you that several users have warned me against (1) attempting mediation with Sam, since he has apparently been involved in several mediation attempts, none of them successful, and (2) accepting you as the mediatior, since you apparently have something of a soft spot for Sam (I believe the term "loveable rogue" was used). I'd therefore like to have a completely transparent and as-brief-as-possible mediation. This means that everything takes place on a page or pages accessible to the entire community, and none of the communication is by private email. Exploding Boy 06:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hold it. It's just come to my attention that "User:Grace Note" is in fact "User:Dr Zen." I find it deeply suspicious that I wasn't informed of this fact from the beginning given my interactions with this user (as "Dr Zen") during the RFC against Robert the Bruce. Given this new revelation, and the fact that this same "Dr Zen" has been described as an intractable edit warrior who's sense of consensus appears to be that he is right and everybody else is wrong, I retract my agreement to proceed with this user as mediator. I thought there was something strange about his last post on my user page. Exploding Boy 07:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hold on, man. I'm not hiding who I used to be. I simply didn't even remember that we'd had a discussion. I still don't actually. I know you're an interested party in this area with a particular set of views, so the name was familiar, but I wasn't aware we'd had words. I don't spend my days digging around in my archives to check out who's who. I took you at face value. I was slagged off in the arbitration because I disagreed with some users on a page. They insisted that a "consensus" was a 2/3rds majority and some used their admin powers to enforce that view. The case was a foregone conclusion because Raul and Snowspinner were two of the editors involved, and another arbitrator had refused to compromise also. If you ever find yourself on the wrong end of those people, EB, you will be described in just the same terms. It doesn't mean anything and it certainly isn't true. If anything, that gives me perspective on what it feels like to be embattled and not be listened to. I've also disagreed sharply with Sam but I've found him willing to compromise in the past. You, OTOH, seem to feel that a prior disagreement means that I can't treat you fairly! Basically, you refuse to mediate unless you are sure you have a mediator who agrees with you to start with. I could hardly offer to be a mediator in a case with Sam if I had a track record of namecalling him and attacking him. If you actually pay attention to the message where I called him a "loveable rogue", you'll see that I was agreeing that he should do his part to resolve his dispute. It was, as many of Sam's problems are, a storm in a teacup. He has a reputation and gets slaughtered for it. Some editors will automatically take the other side against him because of his views. I don't share the views but I have a repugnance for those who think that he shouldn't have a say because they don't share them. Grace Note 03:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
My dear Grace, the issue with Snowspinner et. al. aside (and I realize that just because someone says something about another user doesn't mean it's true), I find it difficult to believe that you don't remember me, considering some of your comments to me. But be that as it may, thanks for your offer to mediate, but no thanks. And just to be clear: I don't want a mediator who's biased either way.
On the subject of Sam, I don't automatically oppose Sam because I disagree with him, and I don't think he shouldn't have a say. But I also don't think he should pull the stunts he pulls. He does have a reputation, and it's deserved. And you're right: these issues he becomes embroiled in are usually of the storm-in-a-teacup variety, and they keep happening, and happening, and happening... Exploding Boy 04:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)