The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Sam Spade

final (52/58/15) ending 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) – Mr. Spade is well-known among the community, having established his account in November 2003, and having accrued over 32,000 edits. He is a charter member of the Association of Members' Advocates, and has stood three times in the ArbCom elections. He contributes broadly to topics in religion, politics, history, and the military, and is certainly unafraid of tackling contentious topics, for which he has developed something of a reputation. All of these things, I imagine most voters already know.

Mr Spade's previous nomination for adminship was quite some time ago, in October 2004. Whatever doubts about him existed then, I cannot imagine substantive objections to his candidacy now. Though Mr. Spade and I are political opposites (to be frank, white supporters of American paramilitarism usually scare the jinkies out of me), I find him to be a thoughtful and honorable man, with an exceptional knowledge-base, and a willingness to listen to discussion. Above all, I believe he respects consensus, and will act judiciously in the use of adminship "powers", if the community sees fit to grant them to him. Ultimately, adminship is not an award for the recognition of longevity, or edit count; nor a license to act according to one's whims. It is a mop, and with that mop comes a duty to serve the community: to keep the encyclopedia tidy, efficient, fair-minded, and friendly. I know Sam Spade understands this duty, and I trust him fully to honor it. I'm proud to nominate him for his overdue mop-bucket. Xoloz 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks, I'm proud to recieve such a heartfelt and thoughtful nomination. While I'll mainly use the new abilities for page moves and other ordinary actions, the ability to protect pages when requested to do so and so forth will be nice as well. Those who know me will be aware that I'll engage in precious little blocking, and will avoid wheel warring like the plague. Sam Spade 22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Strong Support as nominator. Xoloz 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. archola 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support, I could think of few other editors who deserves this more. Ten Dead Chickens 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While Sam is often contentious and prone to conflict, I feel like I know him well enough to conclude that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Guettarda 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support would not abuse tools, which is the only really relevant criteria with me in these decisions. I hope he gets it this time. Enough is enough.Gator (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, hopefully wise enough not to abuse the admin tools. Alphax τεχ 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support—thames 18:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - I have kept an eye on this user for quite some time, and I think that he has matured immensely as a Wikipedian. I have great confidence that he will perform a commendable service as an admin. bd2412 T 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support seems like he is now a good candidate --rogerd 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Every edit should have descriptive edit summary. If there are recent examples of clearly wrong behavior they should be listed instead of fuzzy comments about incompetence. Pavel Vozenilek 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have seen nothing in his recent actions to make me think that this user is beyond redemption. People vote to support people all of the time that undertook past actions not approved of by said supporters. For example, no one was seriously concerned that Clinton would spark a big doobey in the Oval Office or that W. would be doing coke at Camp David like in the olden days. I cannot find any problems over the past year (which is ages in wiki years). Long story short: Spade's recent actions make it "not a big deal" for him to have a couple extra buttons on his menu. I'm sure people will be keeping an eye on him, so if he does misbehave (which he likely won't), I'm sure that appropriate actions will be taken swiftly. youngamerican (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Here's looking at you kid, Support For one of the most venerable and outstanding Wikipedians still with the project. He is particularlly helpful towards newcomers and novices. Opinionated and outspoken at times, yes, but he is not unreasonable. It is highly unlikely he will wield his mop in an abusive or unjust mode.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Long tenure, a pile of edits, and not one detractor can provide a recent diff that shows anything to concern me. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I'm much happier now with Sam's approach to editor conflicts, which led me to oppose his last nom, and I don't think there is any substantive impediment to his adminship. He's a very committed WPian and I am confident will use his adminship properly. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongest support possible. Despite our differences in POVs in many subjects, I have enjoyed working with on articles such as Human, that we brought together to FA status. We need more editors willing to jump in the fray and edit difficult articles, not less. He may have made some enemies while editing these articles, but surely made some friend too. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Martin 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. --MikeJ9919 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, seems like a nice person, unlike a couple of those who opposed. Thumbelina 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I will ask you though Sam to please try not to get into too many huge conflicts. I know you do good work, but try to do things the civil way as much as you can. Raven4x4x 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support People are opposing in straw man arguments. They need to read the What Adminship is not article. Juppiter 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I trust him --Jaranda wat's sup 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Jusjih 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support not a tough call for me...I expect editors to make a stand on content and I see nothing that supports the argument that this editor would abuse admin tools. This isn't the place to settle old and or petty complaints as some of the opposition appears to be trying to do.--MONGO 04:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Strong history of contributions and I see nothing that would lead me to believe the petty examples from his past on wikipedia would lead him to abuse or misuse his admin powers. Anyone with that many contributions is bound to has run up against other users at least once, and from what I've seen, he's handled it decently. Savidan 05:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. utcursch | talk 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Haukur 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Your a good man, sister. Would definitely be above average as an admin..... Petesmiles 13:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support It is time you finally become an admin. Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support. Deserved to be an admin since a long time! --Neigel von Teighen 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. While it seems this bid for adminship will fail, I am not afraid to voice my support for this candidate. User seems dedicated to WP (duh) and unlikely to abuse the sysop tools. Does he have some strong opinions? Yes (duh). But does that make him unworthy of adminship? No. We shouldn't judge people's character on the subject area of their editing. If someone wants to edit political or sexual articles, does that automatically deny them adminship? No. Sam Spade has has a couple of problems here, but who hasn't? I'm not naming names, but Sam Spade would make a better admin than some of our current admins. He isn't afraid to speak his mind (something I feel Wikipedia could use more of) and voice his opinion even when he is in the minority. Speaking his mind is now being held against him. We need more admins, but we don't really need more admins. It would be nice to have someone who knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia (both the editing side and the wikipolitical side) be made admin. Like I said, it seems this bid will fail, but I felt I just had to speak my mind. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support would be good for the encyclopedia as a whole for this nomination to be successful, SqueakBox 01:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Extreme skybridge support. — Feb. 17, '06 [16:05] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  34. Support Say no more. Rich Farmbrough. 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. -- Toytoy 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support.  Grue  19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Mjal 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support Sam Spade has been with wikipedia for a long time and made tens of thousands of useful contributions. I could not fathom seeing him be marked as unqualified to fulfil this position. Bobby1011 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, after due thought. Staffelde 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support --Terence Ong 16:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I see no need to limit this user's capacity to be constructive. // paroxysm User talk:Paroxysm|(n)]] 23:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to claim that only admins are constructive? Even if you are or are not, whatever limitations are being put on this user are of his own making. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, silly. // paroxysm (n) 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we tolersting the unnecessary personal attacks of trolls on this page? Apparently according to this admin removiong her unnecessary and egotistical attack against Sam is a blockable offence but making the attack is not. I am disgusted at such trollish behaviour from an experienced adminm determined to destroy the credibility of the propcess for resons that unfathomable, SqueakBox 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Experience editor who is very dedicated to the 'pedia. Herostratus 07:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Scoo 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good guy, experienced and dedicated. Has his opinions, but seems reasonable and willing to negotiate. I see no reason at all why he shouldn't be an admin. It's not like he's running for president; all it is is a few petty tools. He's perfectly capable of using them effectively and tactfully. DanielCD 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 10:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, has demonstrated exceptional commitment to this project and to the goals of this project. You don't have to like Sam's politics to realize he would be a good admin. Babajobu 15:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support — TheKMantalk 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Excellent contributor. Deserves to be an admin. DaGizzaChat © 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --2004-12-29T22:45Z 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Supoort --Shadow Puppet 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Mongo. --Aaron 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose, Sam Spade can be an aggressive bully when his edits are questioned, and seems incapable of rising above his ideological biases. Cberlet 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Nazism_and_socialism. Sam Spade 15:47, 15 February 2006
  2. I think Morven had it about right last time in commenting that adminship would only magnify the conflicts Sam gets involved in and make him more of a target than he already is. Also, while his previous nomination may be fairly old, I don't think that either Sam or the issues surrounding him have changed significantly since then, so the same outcome is warranted as before. Both for his own sake in terms of being able to continue editing, and for that of Wikipedia's community atmosphere, I oppose. --Michael Snow 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, sorry Jack, but I have to agree with Michael here. Jonathunder 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. strong oppose I always think of him as a less intelligent and slightly ruder version of Ed Poor, and I think he will abuse his position. — Dunc|☺ 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an astonishingly rude comment. Martin 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet astonishingly accurate. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of this rhetoric is needed on his RFA. That is a personal attack on Sam and is unacceptable no matter your biases. I suggest you retract those comments (both of you). Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a personal attack on Ed, too, and poor Ed isn't even the nominee. It's possible to oppose without being offensive. Jonathunder 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I take no offense. I certainly need to learn to be more courteous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lol irony // paroxysm (n) 23:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Never Belligerent, long-winded, and dull. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would kindly ask opposers to consider for themselves whether they are voting only on Mr Spade's actions of long ago. In my nine months here, I have seen nothing meriting these characterizations. This will be my only comment on the matter. Xoloz 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to echo Xoloz here - he has contributed to a massive degree, and has had no problems for months that I have seen. bd2412 T 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I haven't seen any real change in demeanour since his last candidacy. I have respect for him as an editor, but I can't convince myself that Sam will not make us regret entrusting him, even if he acts without malicious intent. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Too political. That's not what we need now (or ever, but especially now). Markyour words 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No.--Sean Black (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Contentious, controversial. I'm on the line here between an oppose and a neutral opinion, but the de-adminship process is to vague at this time. Michael Snow and smoddy both offer good arguments. If Sam Spade can stay out of RfC and Arbitration for a few more months, I'd likely support. Hamster Sandwich 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With considerable regret, (as wanting the best for the encyclopedia is an admirable goal, but wanting and achieving are not the same thing), I Oppose ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Has acted very aggressive, holds grudges when political differences cross his path. In one case uncovering [citing] opponents real-life identity (among other efforts to de-legitimise his argument). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Case_against_Cberlet, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_17/Cberlet_and_Sam_Spade --Colle||Talk-- 03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In fairness to Sam Spade, I outed myself on my user page, but the issue of Sam Spade holding a grudge and refusing to take responsibility for his actions is clearly revealed on the arbitation cited above.--Cberlet 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interpreted that wrong. thank you. I have to say, Cberlet looks more like Admin material here. --Colle||Talk-- 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. User is very hostile to others, and generally unsuitable for adminship. Just because someone racks up thousands of edits doesn't mean they have the temperament or wisdom to be an admin. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Michael Snow and Essjay. Ral315 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose Even if user may have gotten himself into a bit less POV and belligerency trouble as of late, I believe that adminship is a privilege, and not a right. The mere fact that someone has made tens of thousands of edits does not mean that (s)he is entitled to become an administrator. Sad to say, Sam Spade's axe-grinding, as well as his agressive and self-aggrandizing tendencies have not gone away, and it would be very troubling indeed if someone if who often demonstrates such poor judgement and is so prone to pov fights were given the additional status that becoming an admin tends to confer. In this respect, I disagree with Hamster Sandwich, who says "If Sam Spade can stay out of RfC and Arbitration for a few more months, I'd likely support." The very fact that someone has ever been pulled into these fora so often should make one wary of confering adminship upon him or her. I must also beg to differ with uses Grutness, and Jjjsixsix, for absolutely no one "needs" nor "deserves" adminship. Adminship requires dedication, yes, and this dedication can indeed be measured, to a certain extent, by the number of one's edits. Yet adminship it requires excellent judgement as well, and Sam Spade, while certainly investing himself in our project, has in the past exhibited beheviour that can charitably called questionable. A thorough review of his edits and quarrels demonstrates that he is unfit for adminship, just as he was 1 and 1/2 years ago at the time of his first nomination. --Zantastik talk 06:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongly oppose. Sam Spade, while occasionally on the money at times, is terrible at working with those he disagrees. He's proven himself far more keen to drive his opponents off the wiki than try to reach some sort of common ground - behaviour most unbecoming of an admin. He's also been prone to some catastrophic lapses in judgement - as with the time he added a photo of two topless women in front of a bridge to an article about that bridge ([1] [2]), , and vehemently defended its addition. He's far too much interested in wikipolitics and far too little on writing an encyclopedia, and I fear we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing if he becomes an admin. Ambi 06:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am amazed that Sam defended this edit for so long. Not to mention he never really got it. He is currently in a revert war of sorts with regard to the FBI mug shots picture in talk Human. Quite a few have suggested it is not appropriate but everytime it is deleted it reappears courtesy of Sam. It's these types of inabilities to 'get it' that made me vote neutral below. I have to say as I see more of Sams interactions outside the human article I am becoming less convinced of his suitability. There's a passive aggressive element to his editing that might be a problem in an admin. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. We don't need administrators who defend the necessity of "AIDS kills fags dead" redirects by saying they find the phrase useful and had often used it themselves; we don't need administrators who have an ideé fixé about the relationship of Nazism and Socialism and seek to constantly substitute that idea for consensus in multiple articles; we don't need administrators who believe that the best way to illustrate the article on "woman" is by finding "glamour shots" of women with globular pendulous breasts accented by lighting; we don't need administrators obsessed with anal sex. Adminship isn't an award for "most improved": it's easy to improve when you start low. I can't forsee that Wikipedia would be improved by granting admin powers to Sam Spade. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Ambi, Essjay, and Nunh-huh. Candidate does not have the right temperament for adminship and I fear he would become a very disruptive force if given the extra buttons. android79 13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Nunh-huh. Sam's strong views on subjects would make any admin actions he took in those areas highly suspect. David | Talk 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose civility issues, argumentative, POV pusher... in the past. I'm sorry while his more recent behaviour may have improved, I just don't feel comfortable allowing him admin privledges. We've had enough wheel warring as it is.  ALKIVAR™ 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. There are of course reasons a contributor with 32,000 edits isn't already an admin. They're very good reasons. Ambi details some of the best above. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  21. Oppose. In the month and a half since I became an Admin, I've noticed that the nature of the task draws you into more conflicts. While I though of myself as a peacemaker before being an admin, I find it more difficult as an admin to convey an attitude that makes conflicts less divisive. So I oppose this nomination for the reason that people whose nature is divisive to begin with, will probably not make the best admins. I have had no personal exchanges with this candidate that I can recall, but I have reviewed his history and do not find that he has the conciliatory nature that would help him become a good admin. -- Samuel Wantman 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose: Sam has repeatedly done WP:POINT stuff, has repeatedly tried to place highly partisan language in out of the way places, and his recreation, replacement, and then arguing for a topless photo in the Toronto Skybridge was a cincher for his either not knowing or, what's more likely, not respecting the policies of Wikipedia. Having the buttons would mean more delete/undelete protect/unprotect warring. Geogre 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was the Vancouver Skybridge. Don't upset the Canadians! --Calton | Talk 13:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per android79. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Xtra 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose as per Ambi et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose While I suppose one could argue that there's been some improvement recently, I can't imagine what Sam Spade could do to erase years of previous bad behaviour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Nope. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. That he was edit warring on Human mere days ago shows that he hasn't quite changed as much as he'd need to before becoming an admin. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: as per Nunh-huh and Ambi. Just too much controversy continually seems to surround this editor. Giano | talk 07:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strongly oppose, I really have nothing against him, but he is too much of a partisan and a troublemaker (by his own admission usually - he admitted that he adds NPOV tags to pages just to create argument, ostensibly to improve the page, which is fair enough) to be an effective admin. I don't see him ever becoming an "objective" user, as if anyone who really gives a shit about anything could be. But yeah, too belligerent, too confrontational, too opinionated to fulfill the job requirements despite whatever you may think about him in general, positively or negatively. So with all that in mind, I'd like to emphatically state that his large body of contributions is totally irrelevant here, everyone. --Tothebarricades 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Continued POV pushing; frequent lapses in judgement. Not suitable for adminship. Sunray 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, regretfully. I simply cannot support giving him the power to block users. --Ashenai 12:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. If this is "improved", I would hate to see what was considered "very bad". I had forgotten his antics on the Vancouver Skybridge idiocy, and his defense against the editors expressing disappointment at his behavior (The fact that you expected something different shows that you don't know me very well, not that I have changed. I am still boldly making the edits I think are necessary...) shows either an astonishing lack of awareness or an active contempt for others. He's gone 32,000 edits without having become an admin?: there's a reason. --Calton | Talk 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per Michael and Ambi. I don't think Sam has the right temperment for adminship.--cj | talk 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose due to recent questionable editing behavior (thanks to those who provided diffs). We need fewer edit warriors as admins, not more. Friday (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong oppose, POV warrior. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we have some examples. Perhaps all the POV warrior is you and not Sam? See this users unnecessary and objectionable attack on Sam above, SqueakBox 14:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per zoe --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per Nunh-Nun and zoe --SeanMcG 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose per Michael Snow Cynical 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, Mildly. While Sam strikes me as reasonable, thoughtful, and generally well-intentioned, he doesn't seem to have a knack for discussion or integration. Being a relatively new contributor, I can only comment on one experience: he reverted a major revision I had made to mysticism under a NPOV objection. That was fair enough, and I subsequently convinced him that the revision was superior to the original version, and restored it on the understanding that he would re-edit it. However, his re-edit was merely a verbatim re-insertion of a highly problematical passage from original version, with no effort at working it into the new structure. It seems to me that an administrator needs a greater capacity for perspective-taking and dialectical synthesis than this; while Sam seems too decent to actively impose his own POV on a topic, I'm concerned (given his wide range of interests and strong opinions) that the Admin powers might open the door to implicit and unitentional NPOV violations.Ted 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per many others, especially the other Sam (Wantman, O21). Too risky.--Malthusian (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Please see my comment under Computerjoe's 'Neutral' vote (N11). --Malthusian (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose I have serious doubts about his ability to not misuse the mop and buckets at times. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: what's up with that great big oppose button? It seems to make your voice stand out since it swells the entry. If everyone uses it wouldn't it make the list longer visually? ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (oppose #10)[reply]
    Yeah, it was a little too big. I have replaced it with a smaller version (blatantly stolen from User:Fir0002) so that it doesn't break the page formatting. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, no apparent judgement. Charles Matthews 14:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think you could have been more productive than just attacking his character. NPA seems to have been "forgotten" a bit in this RfA. Let's try and do better, folks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather difficult to say "I do not think this person would be a good admin" in a way that no-one could claim is a personal attack. --Malthusian (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he could have said, "I don't like his judgment here and here. I would like to see better use of community building skills." rather than "This user is brainless and cannot work in groups" (which is basically what this oppose vote is saying. There is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If people give the same reasons for opposing again and again it looks even more like a dogpile than it does otherwise. And there is a huge difference between what Charles wrote and what you put in quotation marks on his behalf. --Malthusian (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right. I am probably WP:ABF. I may have overstated his remarks. It just appears like he's saying "User is unable to make competent decisions". And I don't really care for that. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I was going to stay out of this vote, but as Sam has managed to totally trash the Human article in just a few hours...uh no...never, nunca, nie, jamais, mai, nunquam, etc. Jim62sch 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Human#Goodbye_to_FA_forever Sam Spade 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point? That reality bites? Jim62sch 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose, though I very nearly tagged under neutral. User:Nunh-huh's summary is close enough as proxy for my own. The FBI photo in Human didn't help, nor did the bridge photo some time ago. Wyss 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. I'm sorry, but must say no. As Ambi. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per Essjay and Ambi. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. I am choosing not to disclose my thoughts at this time. El_C 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Does not seem to present a favourable ratio of likely utility, if his actions as an admin were as modest as apparently intended, and possible problems, if they prove not to be. Alai 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - too fast to judge and go reverting. Would not solve conflicts, only inflate them. Renata 07:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, strongly Secretlondon 11:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. --Mrfixter 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Just no. Grace Note 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Although he has been in a lot fewer conflicts the past six months or more, I am not ready to believe that the tiger has changed its spots. BlankVerse 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Sam Spade has a long history of provocative editing and community interaction. I remember him making previous public statements that he neither cares about the encyclopedia nor the community here, instead seeing Wikipedia as a sort of nihilistic playground where he can do whatever he finds fun. I found his participation in an edit war at Vancouver Skybridge last July, where he reverted the removal of a nude photo to the article [3] to testify with particular strength to his lack of judgement and his utter lack of concern about the project's true goals. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose We can't tempered individuals as admins Mjal 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Fred Bauder 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose per Mjal, UninvitedCompany and many, many others. SushiGeek 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Rob Church (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Spade definitely deserves adminship, considering the solid body of work he has put into Wikipedia. However, I still feel that there are enough concerns not to put my tick into the support column at the moment. I certainly don't feel strongly enough to oppose, though. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see why he needs adminship, but I also see why he shouldn't have it. Both sides weigh equally - therefore, neutral. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. His ownership of articles such as human (this is the only page where i have intereacted with Sam) leads to distinctly dubious edits.
    20:23, 9 February 2006 (rv, changes complete unacceptable)
    Response: (Was it correcting the spelling errors you object to, or the removal of POV, or the factual corrections?)
    04:30, 10 February 2006 (rv over-riding bias, article needs protected)
    Response: (Perhaps you'd care to participate in Talk, and explain what you think is biased, rather than doing a wholesale reversion of edits?)
    12:25, 10 February 2006 (rv bias)
    Response: (Sam these knee jerk reverts are getting tedious. You are reverting some good edits with this blanket revert. If you think biased edits have been made can you revert those ones specifically.).
    I have seen other instances of this type of behaviour that mean I cannot support such a nomination. Sorry. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very often makes excellent points, and definitely a hard worker. But sometimes he seems angry, and I am not sure how good that is for an admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Someone who has been around for that long and has that many contributions deserves adminship, but he seems too controversial at this time. JIP | Talk 08:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Massive edits and experience + Titty bridge = Neutral. Proto||type 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Honestly, I can't decide to either Oppose or Support. Sceptre (Talk) 10:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Haven't ever encountered this user, and there are good arguments for both oppose and support.--Alhutch 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I've seen both good and bad from Sam Spade. I am not comfortable opposing, nor am I supporting. Mike H. That's hot 09:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral and suggest withdrawal I haven't seen anything on this user. But from other's comments I can't decide to support or oppose. It is quite clear consensus in his favour won't be reacher - so I strongly suggest the withdrawal of this nomination. ComputerJoe 11:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the suggestion that Sam withdraws the RfA. Some bad blood is starting to circulate round this RfA, and although I hate to prejudge, there doesn't seem to be much chance of the RfA going through. There's only a couple of days left, but a day can be a long time on Wikipedia - not long enough for this RfA to succeed, but long enough for lots more ill will to be generated. I withdrew my oppose vote to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest in making this suggestion. --Malthusian (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. It's 43/43. I daren't touch the symmetry! Could we perhaps get one opposer and one supporter to remove their support? Then we'd have 42/42. That would kind of rock :-) Even though it's not good for promotion, Sam Spade would still get to take home life, the universe and everything. Decent consolation prize that. :-) Kim Bruning 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failing that, 44/44 would be quite aesthetically pleasing. --Malthusian (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I'll gladly remove my Oppose vote if someone else removes their Support. :) --Ashenai 15:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Somebody else fix the neutral count, please? I seem to have forgotten how.) Never mind the figures, as long as it's symmetrical and thus fits in with the symmetrical result of Sam's 2004 RFA: 38/38. (The community was smaller.) :-) Bishonen | 美少年 00:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  13. neutral, more or less per Grutness: Sam certainly deserves adminship, but it is dubitable whether he would benefit from adminship, meaning that it is likely to cause him more bother than boon, not necessarly through any fault of his own. dab (ᛏ) 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Neutral my only experience with Sam was positive, and it seems that he knows his stuff, but from the diffs, Sam's going to need to mellow out alot before he gets the mop. I refuse to believe that someone is "irredemable" if they want to improve themselves, and if Sam just said "Well, I agree to disagree" a bit more during these stupid little petty fights(most of the fights on WP), he'd be running away with this right now. I'd suggest re-applying in a few months and counting to 10 before talk page edits. Worked wonders for me in January. Karmafist 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral - Sam is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. He can be very funny. He is always interesting. He knows the rules and plays by them. But he lacks judgement. There are admins who are far worse than he would ever be, but the solution is to weed those out rather than to add to the list of every_now_and_then_in_trouble admins. And he does remind me of Ed Poor, another great Wikipedia asset. WAS 4.250 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Mainly moving obscure pages to old redirects, and protecting the odd page someone comes to my talk page to ask for help with. Stuff like Cartesian materialism 2 weeks ago...
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. These.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.Yep. The best way (perhaps unfortunately) is to click random page and edit something else, work on a stub or some insanely obscure topic, transfer content in from the 1911 britannica, or something like that. Getting into a tiff isn't fullfilling at all. See this article I wrote: Wikipedia:Truce

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would advise the user to report their concerns @ Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, to discuss the matter w the closing admin, or to drop the matter entirely depending on the particulars. If I (as an inclusionist) truely felt the article should have been deleted it must have been truly awful, so I would probably advise the latter. Sam Spade 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A.I would place a copy of the deleted text on the talk page with a header like "deleted text" for the thread, and ask if anyone has any sources. Sam Spade 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. Firstly I would probably not have speedy deleted the stub. Secondly I would (assuming I did delete the stub because it was complete garbage) place a warning on the creators page about rudeness and article creation guidelines. Then I would place an AfD header on the article in question in order to give the creator time and incentive to improve their stub. Sam Spade 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category