User Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade

Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sam_Spade

What links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=User%3ASam_Spade

As JackLynch

Is there some trick to getting the above link working? What is the evidence that Lynch and Spade are the same?--Silverback 22:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive1 about half way down the page. --Ben Brockert 19:34, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

As Sam Spade

"I'm known both for my candor and wit, as well as my engaging manner and thoughtful attentions."

Political bias

Talk:Anarchism

Religious bias

Even though I'm a non-believer (atheist or agnostic, depending on your definition of God), I still usually capitalize God out of respect for believers.--Silverback 22:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sadly its this type of muddled thinking which the authors of the atheism page were trying to avoid. The argument was never about weather you spell the Abramatic deity's name as God or god. It was about weather atheists don't believe in God or weather atheists don't beleive in any gods. By pushing the capitalization of God, Sam Spade was attempting to put his own bias into the article by insisting that in the atheist's mind God (whom is his god specifically) was more important than any other god. Of course atheists capitalize God, just like they capitalize Zeus, but the more important question is if atheists reject all deities or only a specific deity named God. millerc 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Racism/Anti-Semitism

This link doesn't get to the quote.--Silverback 22:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now it does, as it had been archived and Spleeman was linked to the original talk page. IZAK 04:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The disputed sentences link does not get to the right place either. This would be more useful if we could see the original evidence.--Silverback 22:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fixed, as the link was subsequently archived. IZAK 04:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homophobia/transphobia

Behavioral notes


More on interactions with other users

This is a Political Trial for Thoughtcrimes. Highly NOT reccommended!

Hey, folks, leave Sam alone! He was one of my most active and fierce critics for edits on Iridology. But hey, are you after witches or something? Leave the man/lady/Wiki editor at large just as he/she is - free and alone! Or I'll report your acts as a fascist deviation! The right to free speech includes leaving people free to think as they deem fit. If they express themselves, it's there inalienable right. Raising files with profiles and then spamming editors with "urgent" nonsense and stuff raises specters of political police! When I was younger I myself had a huge file in Securitate for opposing communism. I wish not see this experience again! For anybody! If you don't like what Sam thinks, say so, write to him, demonstrate in front of him with facts and your stuff that his opinions are not yours, etc. But don't carry him to Salem for more witch*hunting. Duh! Disgusting! - irismeister 22:54, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Sam Spade has been actively witch hunting for some time now, this page documents his efforts at hiding other people's POV's. Duh! Read the evidence. millerc 04:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does this offend the no personal attacks rule of Wikipedia. We all have our biases. It doesn't matter if we profess them, so long as it is not carried over to the articles. This seriously resemble lynching. Mandel 04:32, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
You miss the point; the problem isn't just that Sam Spade has biases, we all do. His problem is that his definition of NPOV is his POV, he has been repeadedly told to read the NPOV page, and he still insists on erasing any POVs that disagree with his own from articles, even when they're properly attributed. He started a VfD on the libertarian socialism page simply because he didn't agree with libertarian socialism! I'm sure there are a lot of wikipedians who don't believe in Christianity, but would it be proper for them to try to delete its article and everything pertaining to Christianity in other articles? He is heavy handed and extremely pushy. Beyond his own propaganda, anyone who has had experience in dealing with him knows that he is rarely capable of compromise or of rational discourse. He is also extremely hypocritical; he uses whatever tactics he can to get his own way, while actively denouncing others who've used similar tactics.
Its not a trial for thought crimes, its simply documenting that Sam Spade is incapable of acting in a civil manner while dealing with others. He can still talk about his own POV all he wants to, and he frequently does. That's not the problem that people have with him. His attempts at irriating those whom he doen't agree with into leaving an article, and his erasure of other POVs from articles are more important than him talking about himself on talk pages.
I may also point out that Spleeman's own bias leans toward anarchism (real anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism). So it make sense that he would create a page like this (its called direct action) when the formalities of wikipedia and the wikipedian power hierarchy have been incapable, or unwilling to deal with his obviously inappropriate but not quite rule breaking behavior (although he has broken the no personal attacks rule on many occasions).
Since this page was created Sam Spade has relented to some extent on his bad behaviors. So it has served a purpose. Those communities that were struggling with Sam Spade's inability to cooperate, are now able to advance the state of the articles which Sam Spade was vandalizing, while Sam Spade may still actively participate in wikipedia. millerc 04:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More