User:Sam Spade/Clients

Evidence presented by User:Sam Spade

Quotes by User:Adraeus

09:19, 7 Jan 2005 [1]
- "just another Sam Spade cronie"

01:44, 25 Jan 2005 [2]
- "you're openly admitting you're Vfp15's sockpuppet?"

01:14, 22 Jan 2005 [3]
- "I think Vincent should be strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel"

00:45, 21 Jan 2005 [4]
- "No debate is required. A few vandals here and there whose spraypaint is consistently washed away"

07:50, 12 Jan 2005 [5]
- "Sam Spade's detriment to Wikipedia as such is readily apparent"

07:24, 11 Jan 2005 [6]
- "I, like many others, will continue to revert your reinsertions, which amount to childish vandalism"

11:37, 31 Dec 2004[7]
- "How exactly is Sam Spade, a rabid anti-atheist theistic fundamentalist, going to benefit the Charles Darwin article?"

15:11, 20 Dec 2004[8]
- "That article was protected so many times due to Sam Spade and his cronies' pedantic, ignorant and arrogant POV pushing"

Edit Summaries by User:Adraeus

09:37, 11 Jan 2005 [9]
- Edit Summary "rv. childish repeat vandalism"

07:19, 11 Jan 2005 [10]
- Edit Summary "rv. childish repeat vandalism"

Abusive comments/behaviour by User:Adraeus unrelated to the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute

00:54, 28 Dec 2004[11]
- "list of atheists is not only incomplete and POV but also rubbish and irrelevant."

02:06, 28 Dec 2004[12]
- Disrupting wikipedia, assumably to prove a point?

11:23, 27 Dec 2004[13]
- Here he apparently explains the above edit and its motivations, as well as makes a rude comment to a user.

16:27, 24 Dec 2004[14]
- "one of the many simple-minded ad hominem attacks you've launched at me"

11:49, 22 Dec 2004[15]
- "Say whatever you want. I don't care"

01:12, 22 Dec 2004[16]
- Long litany of abuse/character defamation against myself, interspersed w quotes

10:35, 21 Dec 2004[17]
- "The anon apparently can't read"

16:25, 19 Dec 2004[18]
- "If you were not so biased, you would understand..."

04:23, 19 Dec 2004[19]
- "I'm not amazed by your lack of comprehension since you consistently distort the truth, re-interpret things in a way which you think benefits your agenda, and proceed to introduce what is "sneaky vandalism" into the article. Read what I wrote again and perhaps my words will penetrate your thick head"

03:05, 19 Dec 2004[20]
- "...and so his ego rears its ugly head"

01:57, 19 Dec 2004[21]
- "What is your malfunction?"

14:08, 18 Dec 2004[22]
- Many rude statements, and a rude section header. Statements include "If you still don't get it, either you're ignorantly arrogant or you're mentally incapable of comprehension. Get my point yet?"

16:30, 16 Dec 2004[23]
- "I urge you to actually learn" ... "I'm obliged to point you to a good resource regarding logical fallacies, which seem to be plentiful in your feeble arguments"

16:13, 16 Dec 2004[24]
- "fallacious, ambiguous and obviously unresearched"

15:02, 14 Dec 2004[25]
- "you tried to lie again"

14:30, 14 Dec 2004[26]
- "the well-known POV Warrior Sam Spade strikes again"

13:04, 14 Dec 2004[27]
- "mass pov-influenced reversion of corrections by the troll, BM"

22:14, 10 Dec 2004[28]
- "You're merely ignoring everything we've posted over the past few months. Troll."

16:12, 10 Dec 2004[29]
- Extended rant, largely on the subject of myself

15:29, 10 Dec 2004[30]
- Similar to above, rant regarding myself

02:33, 9 Dec 2004[31]
- Very good example of how Adraeus interacts w others. Please read the comment just preceding his, its very insightful.

01:47, 9 Dec 2004[32]
- More attacks on myself

15:47, 8 Dec 2004[33]
- Yet more, including "Apparently, POV Warriors and Trolls don't like being pointed out and admonished"

15:05, 8 Dec 2004[34]
- Vandalizing my user page, suspiciously close after this anon edit vandalizing my user page

06:25, 8 Dec 2004[35]
- "you (and others like T2X) are apparently ignorant of the obvious issues that prohibit this article's development: 1) this article will remain protected until the POV Warriors (Sam Spade & Co.) are bridled and leashed"

02:59, 8 Dec 2004[36]
- "If BM chooses to ignore the information contained within our archives, should his opinion be considered?"

17:27, 3 Dec 2004[37]
- unpleasantries

05:22, 18 Nov 2004[38]
- "If the rational, intelligent or sane were given more value in resolutions, perhaps mediators and arbitrators would be worth having. As of now, thanks to an incredibly flawed NPOV policy which supports POV Warriors, neither committees are worth a grain of salt."

My Summary

I feel that the evidence against User:Adraeus is strong, and suggests he provokes other users, and exaggerates minor debates into emotional edit wars. I feel that the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute is but one case of this. I feel that his interaction with the wikipedia has been overwhelmingly negative in its net impact. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)