Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The voting on this matter is closed. The result is that Sam Spade was not promoted. Please do not add further votes to this page.

[edit] Sam Spade

(As a request, please keep your votes to one or two sentences at most, for ease of counting. Feel free to expand on your reasons in the Comments section.)

Vote here

(38/38/6) ends 23:02, 10 Oct 2004

Sam Spade, whose name is not actually original, has been a member of the community for nearly a year (since November 4, 2003) and has made over 12,000 edits, making him a likely candidate for the adminship. He has earned himself a barnstar, and from what I heard is a good compromiser. I would support him for administrator. Marcus2 23:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to say; I am quite thrilled w the show of support, my sincere thanks and appreciation to each and every one of my supporters. Win or lose, the nature of this "election" is such that I am considering becoming much more open with the wiki community, perhaps disclosing my whereabouts, name, photo, and other such personal details which I have been withholding as of late. Regardless of how things go at this point, I consider this a sure sign that I will eventually gain a position of respect and dignity in reward for my having volunteered here, a mighty progress from my early days of slander and scorn, my only reward in those times having been the title of "troll" (and of course the satisfaction of a job well done). Of course there have been some friendly faces thruout, but due to the transient nature of the wiki, I am saddened to see far too many of them have left us now. I suppose I can take some small measure of comfort in outliving some of my ugliest critics as well, but there are a many others I sincerely hope choose to grace us with their presence again. Seeing as how I have a majority currently, I will show you all the respect of formally accepting Marcus2's kind nomination, and will begin campaigning accordingly in short order (for the moment, I'm off to the market for tea and sundries :) God bless you all, Sam [Spade] 16:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Sam Spade is a jaded and grizzeled wikipedia veteran, and based on his behaviour up 'till now, he wouldn't abuse admin privileges. (see also comments) Kim Bruning 10:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Kim. Sam Spade is contraversial at times, but I've never seen him do anything that would make me suspect he would abuse admin powers. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 14:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Marcus2 15:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. While we maybe don't share many common views, Sam has always been a gentleman and a class act to me, and as far as I have seen, everyone. He does have his twirks and quirks, but who doesn't? If somebody has his unique view on things, I’m fine as long as he doesn't push it down other peoples throats, and Sam doesn’t, he accepts compromise. GeneralPatton 15:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Yes, Please. --Spiko-carpediem 15:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Sockpuppet. Gzornenplatz 17:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

   No. Spiko-carpediem 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   User has four edits. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

   And that should keep my voice from being heard? Spiko-carpediem 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

5. Yes, of course. {Ανάριον} 15:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Netoholic @ 15:42, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) -- Sam may have controversial ideas, but there is no evidence he would abuse the added sysop abilities. Considering he is a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and routinely welcomes new users, he may be approached for special assistance. He obviously knows his way around the Wiki, and should be granted this.
7. Joined just 4 days before me! --ℛyan! | Talk 15:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
8. — Kate Turner | Talk 16:54, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) Although a "vast amount of edits" is not a good indication of suitability for adminship.
9. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:14, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC). Anyone with as much tenure as Mr. Spade should be an admin. With the amount of tenure he has, certainly Mr. Spade should be an admin. The only difference between him and many current admins is he became controversial before becoming an admin. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and would use his administrative powers responsibly.
10. sam spade has always been a very kind guy and i support his adminship. --NightDragon 17:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. func(talk) 18:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. I had to think carefully about this. Sam and I have amicably disagreed on a great many things. However, upon consideration and a brief exchange with Sam, I do feel that Sam would follow policy as an admin, and I have every confidence that he knows the exact boundaries of those policies. I know he has been in conflicts in the past, but I believe that those days are largely behind Sam, and frankly I think that a great deal of the animosity towards Sam has been an animosity towards his frequently unpopular political and social opinions. Again, after very careful consideration, support. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. We should give him a chance. I agree with Jwrosenzweig. Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. Whether or not people agree with his views (I do not always) he is thoughtful and responsible. He would be a credit to the role. I see no evidence that he would abuse the authority involved. Mark Richards 22:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. Seems to me that his controversial past has to do with being on the wrong side of some very bad people. Anyone who can pull that off should have a shot at being a sysop, as they've got at least some of the right ideas. Also strikes me as generally being quite friendly. -- Grunt   ҈  23:32, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

    As usual, my record speaks for itself. Thanks for your kind words, Grunt! Sam [Spade] 23:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

16. I have had many conversations with this user on MSN Messenger, and while he may be controversial to some people at some instances, overall, I think he is a very civil character, and as good (better, in fact) an administrative candidate as I was, way back when :-). Additionally, his statements regarding his prospective use of the admin powers strikes me as honest and well stated, and I seriously doubt that Sam Spade will misuse his admin powers, if this vote receives a bit more consensus, that is... ugen64 23:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
17. A. D. Hair 23:56, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
18. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
19. ffirehorse 05:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. VV 13:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Has made some questionable edits and judgement calls in the past, but overall is civil and responsible and I do not believe he would misuse admin privileges. VV 22:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
22. Sam has indeed helped me with a few issues in the past and I've always had well-mannered contributions from him in discussions. Fire Star 23:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
23. David Remahl 02:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. zoney ♣ talk 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. Herschelkrustofsky 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) He is committed to upholding Wikipedia policies.
26. Guanaco 00:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
27. A couple of months ago, I would never have believed myself voting this way. However, my compromise needs more work. I would like to see it discussed as a general policy. I would also like to demystify sysophood as much as possible. I also think Sam will act responsibly. I therefore give a vote in support. Danny 01:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
28. Mike H 06:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
29. A prodigal son comes home. --Uncle Ed 13:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
30. Yes, Sam seems like to err on the wiki philosophy side of things rather the abuse of administration powers side, unless we want the blandness of Worldbook that is the way to lean.--Silverback 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
31. Tuf-Kat 03:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
32. +sj+ 08:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
33. Sure, Sam's okay. Adminship is supposed to be not a big deal, anyway. - Nat Krause 08:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
34. Jiang 08:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
35. This should be no big deal. This is not a popularity contest. My experiences with Sam Spade have been very positive and I feel, although there is some controversy surrounding, that he would make a very good admin. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
36. I detest Sam's opinions on a lot of things, but I don't honestly think he would make a bad sysop. - Mark 10:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
37. I find Sam to be a good person an A+ contibutor, he would make a wonderful Sysop--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 11:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
38. *Support - I wasn't going to vote here because from the time I first saw the vote it has been clear that consensus isn't going to be reached this time round (and I very rarely vote here anyway). But with the recent posts to various talk pages - something I can only describe as a smear campaign - I have decided to belatedly add my support for Sam. I disagree with his views on many subjects but do not doubt his good intent and believe he would be fully capable of separating his views from any admin duties. -- sannse (talk) 14:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
39. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC) (added well after voting ended)

Oppose

1. No. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) And after seeing his threats to abuse admin powers—to "block . . . based on violations of civility" and to "block well liked and respected people who consistently violate policy" (neither of which is a responsibility delegated to administrators)—below, double no. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I've seen so much controversy surrounding you that I cannot endorse this nomination. I do not believe that you would be able to make use of the administrative responsibilities in a relatively uncontroversial - and safe - manner. If you wish to defend yourself, please do, but for now... -- Grunt   ҈  23:15, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

2. CryptoDerk 23:17, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC) As per Sam's talk page, my vote is no primarily because of the statements "I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities" and "[winning adminship] would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did".
3. Sorry, No. Jayjg 01:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   I believe you are a valuable contributor with regards to providing new lines of thought for Wikipedia, I am afraid that such opinions would not be a favourable quality in an Administrator. Too much controversy is only good in certain circumstances. Sorry, Sam. •→Iñgólemo←• 04:28, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

   That doesn’t make sense, we are not judging some of his views, we are judging if he's capable of being a good administrator, that has nothing to do with his personal views, but has everything to do with his maturity and integrity (or lack of it). GeneralPatton 15:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Right. But the point I‘m trying to make is that his views are too strong to the point that they will cloud his 'maturity and integrity', however strong they might by otherwise. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

   While I am not yet inclined necessarily to vote for Sam Spade, I have come to the conclusion that he does not deserve my vote against him. Yes, he has flaws. But they are not as critical as I previously felt. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:42, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

4. Sorry. I'm inclined to agree with Ingoolemo and Grunt. Ambi 04:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose for various reasons, including the following remarks: (1) "the problems on the wiki will be best solved by eliminating the status of admin, not by the appointment of more people to the position"; (2) "the only benefit I can think of in adminship would be the "prestige" of community support"; (3) "I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities"; (4) "its highly unlikely I'd win, and would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did." Exploding Boy 15:39, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
6. I must oppose because of Sam's continuing patterns of behavior. I have found him to be extremely argumentative (IMHO often for the sake of arguing), and while he hasn't broken any rules in a long time, he often is skirting the edge of those rules as closely as possible, and manages to stay just barely shy breaking them. Here is a good example: User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200407#.95 Mediation request: Herschelkrustofsky and AndyL. Also see the comment I made here for more information and links to examples. BCorr|Брайен 16:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Troll. Gzornenplatz 17:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

   I oppose him too, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that he is a troll. Also, the label troll is just that: a label. Branding a user a 'troll' will not help any problems Wikipedia has. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

8. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Oppose.
9. Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright troll, but sometimes he does seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, even if he has no real idea about the subject. I haven't had a dispute with him myself for months, but from what I know about his attitudes and opinions I don't think adminship is a good idea. Besides, he can continue to be friendly and greet users without being an admin. Adam Bishop 20:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. No, no, no, a THOUSAND times no. Sam Spade is a troll with a hair trigger. RickK 21:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this vote? -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
      • I do. RickK should be de-sysopped for this. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I should be de-sysopped for voting No on an admin nomination? RickK 23:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • How about for being consistantly rude and regularly biting newbies? Sam [Spade] 23:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Pot. Kettle. Black. RickK 23:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
              • Amen, but 'consistantly' is too strong in both cases. Regardless, rudeness is a problem, but not so great as to warrant de-sysopping. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
            • Chuckle. Funny Rick! Mark Richards 23:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Netholic: the point is the opinion expressed by the vote, not its hypocrisy. We treat it all opinions as representing truth, even if the person making it doesn't believe it. Calling it hypocrisy is a personal attack. If you have issue with RickK's hypocrisy, fine. But don't take it up on the Adminship page. This whole discussion of de-sysopping is completely irrelevant here. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
    • Rick, I oppose his adminship too, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that he is a troll. Also, the label troll is just that: a label. Branding a user a 'troll' will not help any problems Wikipedia has. Rick, I respect you a lot, but there is a tendency towards making personal attacks that isn't constructive. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
11. No, at least not yet - a POV editor, reticent to admit making a mistake or to be self-critical. Seems addicted to conflict. Does not abide by standards he expects of others (ie violates the same rules of "harmonious editing" he promotes). Tendency to be vindictive and petty. Not irredeemable but needs to show a track record of improved behaviour before he can be given anything like an adminship.AndyL 22:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. Seems too volatile and too prone to seeing only one side of an issue. I would rather not give Sam the extra rope to hang himself that adminship would provide. He has in more recent times shown more ability to stick within the letter of the Wikipedia "law", but I'm not sure we need an admin who constantly pushes almost to the edge of abuse of powers, which I fear he would. —Morven 08:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
13. 172 12:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. RK 23:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) At this time, I do not see granting Sam Spade this position to be a proper decision. RK 23:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
16. Charles Matthews 06:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Unfortunetaly, in my experience, he has certainly not been a good compromiser. Sorry Sam. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. I'm sorry, I am. I like Sam, personally, and I've had many a good chat with him. But I'm not at all sure that Sam could use administrator powers fairly... he's just involved in disputes too much. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Opposed absolutely! IZAK 21:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Sam has failed to respect others and has not sought compromise. LegCircus 23:30, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
21. Oppose. On some topics, Sam can be stridently POV and unbending. Not a good idea to give him more powers. Sunray 00:38, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
22. Oppose, reasons similar to User:CryptoDerk and User:Exploding Boy above (I'd like to point out that I have no reason to doubt that this user is a valuable and trustworthy contributor). — Matt 01:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
23. Oppose, as above. Useful contributor, not an admin imo. Sjc 05:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. Oppose, I've been here only a very short period of time but I find Mr.Spade's lack of NPOV to be a slight problem. I read about adminship, and I don't really think Mr. Spade is up to it yet, but nevertheless I think it's still possible that he could become an administer for wikipedia, but not today ^_^--Gustuv 23:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. No. →Raul654 02:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
26. Strongly oppose. Never have I met such a persistently eristic user. -- Hadal 05:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
27. Stewart Adcock 21:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (unsigned comment added by User:132.239.16.160 — Kate Turner | Talk)
28. I've seen him quick to reference policy and threaten to block/ban, and seen him in one too many heated point of view arguments to feel comfortable with him as an admin —siroχo 22:54, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
29. Oppose at this time. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
30. Oppose. silsor 09:23, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
31. Can't support a troll for adminship.→User:Doug Danner Oct 10 09:20:39 UTC 2004
    • Troll you say, show me some evidence of it. If not, you obviously don't know enough about this user. Marcus2 13:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the holocaust denial attempts in Jew are enough for me. - Doug
32. Xtra 09:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has about 70 edits. See contribs. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
33. Oppose. Too disputed to be appointed as admin. MathKnight 09:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
34. Oppose absolutely, for most of the reasons listed by others above. Tannin 10:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I like Sam Spade as a person but I think he has superficial knowledge or biased opinions (I am not sure which of the two) about e.g. Nazism, but he still has made substantial edits to the article. As an example Sam Spade wanted to add a relationship to Chinese communism to the article to which I opposed. Andries 10:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Worried about enforcing POV disputes. Mpolo 10:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
37. No, same reasons listed by Grunt, Ingoolemo, et al. Looking back at his history, a good, regular contributor though. His own comments about admin'ing make me worry about POV enforcement. Since that's the thing I've always been most concerned about on Wikipedia (potential POV enforcement), I'm automatically against. Nothing personal. And please, everyone, quit trying to label him a troll. He's really not. Shem 10:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has about 25 edits. See contribs. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
      • This user also seldom logs in. Spare me the Floridian tactics, Netoholic. Go harass the users screaming "troll"; trying to belittle legit editors like me won't help your presentation here. Shem 03:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Sock puppet voting is major problem. If you are a legitimate user, I apologize, but you have to realize that until you have significant number of edits, your votes will not be counted. This isn't personal, just some basic suspicion which is alleviated over time. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppet. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
          • I'm aware that mule accounts and socks can be a problem, in any online community, Netoholic. I'm not one, and a sysop can verify that through my IP. I don't know of any "significant edit" rule on here, not that it matters. Sam and I can speak fine on my talk page, there's no need to carry things on here.
38. Oppose. --French Tourist 17:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It looks like you don't have too much experience with Wikipedia. Please give your reason for making this decision. Marcus2 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge your query, but think I am totally entitled to vote without explaining my motives. Anyway, it would be repetition since they are a (strict) subset of the motivations given by the 37 previous voters. And I do not intend to write more. --French Tourist 21:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. From what I have seen, Sam has generally acted in a perfectly correct way and really strives to do so (but see [1] [2]). I agree with Kim's PITA comment though. I would support Sam if there was a simple, realistic way to take admins to account when they give in to the temptation to stray from the best admin conduct. pir 15:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Vote changed to neutral pending a more complete personal investigation of his contributions. -- Grunt   ҈  22:56, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

2. David Cannon 02:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC). I've seen Sam about a few times. I have not personally seen anything in his behaviour to disqualify him from sysophood. Having said that, I've read a huge number of comments on user pages from other users, both positive and negative. That makes me think it best to reserve judgement for the time being. My answer, therefore, is not "NO" but "Probably yes, but not just now."
3. I've seen him a few times and liked what I saw, but just reading this RfA and his responses to it instills doubt in my mind. Not enough to vote oppose, but just enough to be unsure. –Andre (talk) 14:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. I've been avoiding voting here. I haven't had a lot of direct interaction with Sam--my initial encounters some time ago left me with a not entirely flattering impression of him. His comments at the time seemed deliberately obscurantist (a sort of ersatz obi-wanna-be). First impressions are hard to shake, and I've seen a few instances that have reinforced my skepticism. However, I have also seen Sam make some really admirable contributions--both to individual articles and to the community as a whole. So even though I just don't feel right about supporting Sam for adminship at this time, I have come to have considerable respect for him and I don't want to oppose either. older≠wiser 21:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC
5. MMMMMMmmmaybe. He's a fine old Wikipedian, but he's hot on the trigger. Hmmm. Rickyrab 03:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. From his record, I can't decide either way for Sam. From his contribution level however, he would be a good admin, but his precedent suggests he might enforce his POV. Evolver of Borg 19:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

(all discussions not replying to votes have been moved to the Talk page)