Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

W00t
I'm ahead!

Sam [Spade] 15:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't get made an admin by simple majority. RickK 19:39, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

And it's not even a simple majority at the moment. 66 people have voted, 33 say yes, 28 no, 5 Sam has the support of exactly 50% of those who have voted. AndyL 23:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now it's 37-37-6AndyL 13:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another Option

 * This is one of the most beguiling votes, and one I have tried to avoid. However, I have been asked to jump in so I will. On one hand, I can support Sam's sysophood. I think he has shown a familiarity with Wiki procedures and I do not think he would overstep the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Furthermore, I am opposed to giving more credit to sysophood than it already has. It is not some elite club with special powers, but a group of users who have proven themselves and are willing to take part in the routine acts of clean-up. Sam is certainly qualified to do that, as are most users. On the other hand, I also believe that making Sam a sysop may be divisive among the community. While that is not necessarily his fault, I must consider the implications of that. As a result, I want to suggest a third option. I propose that Sam be made a sysop on a trial basis, for a period of three weeks, at the end of which a new vote (lasting one week) will be held whether to confirm his sysophood. In that time, I am sure Sam will work to allay the fears of his detractors and prove himself capable of being a sysop. Furthermore, if this works, it can be used in other instances as well, or perhaps even for all new sysops. Danny 18:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As someone who is opposed to this nomination, I think that this is a reasonable proposal for addressing the concerns that Danny has raised, and the concerns I have with the nomination. My only suggested change is that the trial period should last a full month. Based on my concerns stated below, I think a month would better show whether any patterns of behavior are present that might be problematic. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As someone who supports this nomination, and one whose own nomination would likely generate similar controversy, I agree it sounds reasonable. I think there needs to be an understanding that the "affirmation" vote is only on the merits of his activities since becoming a sysop and that if he chooses to not use the abilities very often (as he's stated), that it won't be held against him. I think one month will give a better gauge, also.   If, though, this current vote ends in the typical range for promotion (75-80%), then no affirmation vote should be expected. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)


 * As someone who is not expressing an opinion on the nomination, I nevertheless approve of the general concept of a trial adminship. I have a list of howevers:
 * If we do this, it is going to set a precedent. How are we going to deal with cases in the future. Is everyone going to have an affirmation? What is consensus for an affirmation (as opposed to an original vote)? Same? More? It obviously shouldn't be less. If everyone doesn't have to be affirmed, who will and who will not?
 * If we do this, the trial period should be three months, IMO. No particular comment on Sam, but anyone can keep his/her nose clean for a month, or they shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all.
 * Bureaucrats cannot desysop someone. Under current software, this has to be done by a developer or steward, which is really saying the job is going to fall to Angela. We should get her input into this.
 * This is a big change in how we're doing things. At the least this should be put to some kind of formal vote, rather than doing it ad hoc. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This would represent a giant policy change and set a precedent for every controversial candidate to go through this. Do we want this?  Also, agree of course with Cecropia that any user (except a few truly insane ones) can hold their breath through the proposed trial period - but at the same time three months is a long time and may even make the "trial admin" vulnerable to blackmail.  (I can also think of admins who would have failed the long test were it operative - but they weren't subjected to it.) V V  23:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thought, after this discussion, I've changed my mind about this idea. I agree that this could easily be setting a bad precedent, and I think that we should move this whole discussion to a policy page and allow the vote on Sam Spade to continue. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This idea sets a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible precedent. &rarr;Raul654 03:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Not only do I strongly oppose this in principle, I specifically oppose it for Sam Spade. This is a BIG mistake. RickK 22:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any direct evidence that Sam can't be trusted with these access rights, and considering he has shown himself to be a prodigious contributor, I can't understand how your opposition can be considered. Let us know your full reasons, without the name calling and fear-mongering. Otherwise, I don't see why he can't be given the opportunity, just like you were once.  "Requests for adminship" is like any other page, and we should work toward consensus. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * User:RickK/Sam Spade. And consensus doesn't mean everybody give in to you.  RickK 05:29, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rick says on this page "false accusation of vandalizing his User page, which I have never edited" but this is not true. Minutes before Sam contacted him, RickK did did edit Sam's subpage, prompting Sam's message. I'd call this a false accusation of a false accusation. The other claim "Jack welcomes himself to Wikipedia" is not a diff between consecutive edits, it is the diff of a two days of edits; in which there seems to be some back-and-forth bantering, but no evidence of anything.  Please note that both Rick "complaints" are from February of this year - a long time.  I also have to ask, why is Rick's subpage protected?  There is no policy to support it. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you say some terribly stupid, stupid, stupid things on this page... When you become a bureaucrat, then feel free to analyze whether or not votes should be counted. Until then, shut up.  Whether Rick has well-developed, logical reasons for opposing or he just wants to oppose because he doesn't like the guy, his vote is valid.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  06:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to say, thats almost as rude as what RickK has been saying. Far from stupid, Netoholic is expressing a broad and general outrage that persons like Rick are allowed to say and do whatever they please w/o community condemnation. Eventually things will reach a boiling point of course, but until then what is shameful are those who don't speak out against incivility and policy violations, not those who do. Thank you for being one of the brave ones, Netoholic, and I personally apologize for Blankfaze's comments. Sam [Spade] 13:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like Danny, I have resisted voting here. However, I am concerned that using this process would create stratification among administrators. As an admin under this procedure, if he becomes one, Sam would effectively be a second-class admin compared to all the other admins. He couldn't use any of his new abilities for fear of messing up during this probation period. And then afterwards, we still wouldn't have a better way than before of removing him, if he becomes the rogue admin his detractors fear.

Instead, I think we should consider an idea Danny once promoted, that all admins be on a trial basis on equal footing. The term would be longer, something like a year. This suggestion has come up again at Wikipedia talk:Administrator Activity Proposal. This is currently how adminship is handled on Meta, for example. If something like this was in place, I think people would find it easier to treat adminship as "no big deal", and grant the privilege more liberally. --Michael Snow 23:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I like this idea, since it is very important for adminship to be no big deal -- and for de-adminship to be less of a slap in the face. Perhaps admins could be listed on a large calendar by the week in which they became an admin, and every six months admins would be put up for a confirmation vote for a week. +sj +  08:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Danny's proposal, while Danny is to be commended for coming up with a creative solution, I believe that a "trial period" would set poor precedent, because I believe that in a matter of months this would come to be required of nearly all prospective admins. I also believe that it would accomplish little in this case or any other. uc 15:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not consider all admins on trial at all times. Are admin powers irrevokable?--Silverback 03:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * uc, I believe that is the idea; not that it is a trial one must pass before becoming a 'full admin', but that it is a change in the way adminship is couched in general. +sj +
 * Let's keep "Requests for adminship" pages always open, and an admin could only have the admin power as long as he continued to meet the criteria for gaining admin status. votes could continue to be accumulated, and changed.  This might make marginal adminships volatile, presumably making them less worth the bother or will keep the admin on his/her best behavior to maintain the support required to maintain elgebility.--Silverback 10:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved Comments section
See User talk:Sam Spade for his remarks on his nomination. Whosyourjudas (talk) 05:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA is not a popularity contest. There's several people who I actually supported who I personally found to be a PITA.

As far as I can judge from personal experience (that's all I have, so there you go), Sam Spade has always behaved correctly and according to wikipolicy, even when others were misbehaving. He has done some controversial things, I'll grant, but always by the rules. If I've missed something, please enlighten me!

I think he'd use admin privileges in a similar by the rules fashion. I admit to being curious as to if, how and when Sam would use those priveleges most. Kim Bruning 10:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanx Kim, you rock. I wouldn't use them (admin "powers") at all, as best as I can tell. There have been some proposed policies where only admins would be allowed to vote on certain matters (if an unpopular newbie / returning crazy sockpuppet aught to be banned, for example) which I would vote on if I were an admin, and if the community had the misfortune to have such anti-democratic policies put into place. Otherwise, I'm not aware of anything an admin can do that I want or need to do (and can't already). I suppose I might protect a page if asked, but I would rather have someone else do it so that I could become actively involved in the debate, thereby fostering some progress. I seriously doubt I'd block anybody, and if I did I would do so fairly and evenly, based on violations of civility, rather than paltry and easily correctable vandalism (i.e. I'd block well liked and respected people who consistently violate policy, not just trolls). As I said on my talk page, I'm not interested in other abilities, editing the main page (which is awesome shape, BTW), deleting pages, etc (I'm an inclusionist)...


 * I have oft been criticized for being controversial, or jaded, or contrary, certainly unpopular in certain circles but I assure everyone that if I were prone to violating policy I would be long gone from here; the ragged band of thought police and firebrands who have been haranguing me ever since they first heard my reasoned voice of dissent would have long ago seen to that. I think 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. What has caused the project to thrive is its egalitarian nature, and this is exactly what the admin/cabal/groupthink/oligarchy/in-crowd seeks to destroy with their self-righteous exclusionary hypocrisy. Happy voting, Sam [Spade] 13:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * p.s. I have two barnstars ;) Sam [Spade] 13:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * p.p.s. Does anybody else think its funny that I got 36 votes in the recent vote for the arbitration committee, but only 1 vote here? Har har har... Sam [Spade] 13:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I tell you what I think is funny. That Marcus2 nominated you at all. I wonder why he did that? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 14:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you implying here? That is not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious. Very Verily  07:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Because of the vast amount of edits during a period of 11 months. Marcus2 15:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comment from BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;: Regarding my "Oppose" vote above: BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) As I said, while Sam Spade 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 of breaking them.
 * 2) I see this as a pattern of behavior that has not actually changed over the many months he has been here, even though the specific activities and conflits change. I feel that it can be seen from his time as User:JackLynch (see Conflicts_between_users/JackLynch) to the current discussion at Talk:Racism.
 * 3) Also, another user who was getting into regular conflicts with Sam created a good listing that, to me, demonstrates that pattern of behavior has continued unabated through the point that the page was last edited in August -- it can be found at User:Spleeman/Sam_Spade.
 * 4) Also, I will mention that while I have long had less-than-pleasant interactions with Sam, I have hoped on many occasions that we could mend our differences, but with limited success, as can be seen on my talk page from July here: User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200407.
 * 5) I'll also note (for full disclosure) that Sam vigorously opposed my nomination to the Mediation Committee (see: Requests to be mediator/archive, but that I don't hold that against him as he was and is perfectly entitled to express his opinion. I just want to be open about that so that people know that fact -- and which is why I suggest they follow the links provided and decide for themselves.

I've never voted before for someone who's edits I've not personally encountered much, but I took the time to go through Sam's edit history, and it's very impressive. He takes on those articles that tend to be controversial, so it is no surprise that he gets involved with controversy, but there is plenty of evidence that he generally tries to work toward consensus. His numerous comments regarding the nature of adminship on WP lead me to believe that he would not abuse it, (and I like editors who provide very complete edit summeries :) Besides, like Orthogonal would no doubt point out, we have a well-known system for de-sysoping. ;-) func(talk) 18:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments, func. The truth is the only valid objections to me is that I have disagreed w certain persons re: controvercial issues, and because I take admins and other popular rule breakers to task. I will continue to do that, here and elsewhere, regardless, but I think its very telling who votes against me, and why. To be honest there's precious little I have done here that I regret, but I will admit the time I swore at Bcorr (after quite a bit of harassment re: my name change, mind you) is one of them. I take this opportunity to admit I was fully in the wrong to have used foul language in that instance, and would like to see me and Bcorr on better terms generally, despite our many conflicts and concerns. Oh, and I don't argue for the sake of arguing, but I do sometimes champion a POV to stimulate thought and NPOV. Thanx again for all your support! Sam [Spade] 21:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's problematic in itself, as is the fact that you waited until you thought you saw a majority in support before officially accepting the nomination. Exploding Boy 22:09, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's not jump at shadows -- there's nothing wrong with waiting to accept a nomination until people seem to be supporting you. Many users here have done so, and no one sees anything wrong with it -- I myself can't conceive of any reason why this is "problematic".  It's Sam's right not to accept a nomination unless he feels that it's being supported (especially since he didn't ask to be nominated), and I can't see that it is at all shady.  Unless you can explain why it is, I hope you'll let this one drop, Exploding Boy -- I have no problem with people expressing doubt in Sam (I know his history here), but let's express doubt in truly doubtable actions. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * EB is another person I'd rather not have conflict with, altho unlike Bcorr I don't feel I have wronged him. rather it is my opinion that he has a false impression of me (as a bigot, I assume?). We had an unfortunate debate regarding an article (gay bath house) he wanted featured, and things have been tense since. In case it helps any, I have found you to be an overall benefit to the project EB, and outside of areas of intense personal POV, I think your edits are superb. Sam [Spade] 22:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Typical. I think people would benefit from looking over your posts regarding the Gay bathhouse article; they're good examples of the reasons you wouldn't be suited for adminship. Exploding Boy 00:27, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, I held the same overall beliefs as Sam Spade in that debate, and I'm gay, so I break double rules. Should I be desysopped? Mike H 18:00, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

While I do not wish to vote at this time, I would like to observe that adminship is not a gold star, and is granted based on the needs of the project rather than on the achievements and shortcomings of the candidate per se. Many votes and comments seem ill-considered to me because they do not focus upon whether the goals of the project would be furthered by his adminship. uc 15:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh, this RfA reads like a Who's who of Wikipedia. There seems to be a certain pattern emerging wrt the oppose voters. Gosh! Has anyone else noticed? Kim Bruning 23:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I notice a number of patterns; could you be a bit more specific? For example there seem to be more current administrators opposing than supporting; is that what you meant? &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 23:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Lots of "wikiwarriors". :-) Kim Bruning 00:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's a wikiwarrior? Exploding Boy 00:16, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

People who are um, strongly committed to keeping wikipedia tidy, and don't mind bending the rules a bit to do so I suppose. :-) I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea. Kim Bruning 00:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As always, you bring some potent insight to the table, Kim. A good many (not all of course) of my opposition are frequent rule benders (read breakers) who are of the opinion that admins are above the rules, nube's are suspect (and to be discouraged), and that whats best for the "in-crowd" is whats best for the project. I oppose alll of that, and won't stop doing so, sysop or no. Sysops need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. I'm tired of seeing nube's bullied and maligned, while well liked long term "regulars" do as they please, w the community looking the other way. That said, I want to compliment those who vote against me not for selfserving purposes, not out of personal antimosity, but because they sincerely feel I am best suited to being an editor, and not to the tasks of admin. Right or wrong, that is a position I can respect. Sam [Spade] 13:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion sounds a lot like a personal attack, but without any names. As someone who has clearly said why I oppose Sam's adminship (and provided links to back it up), I'm not sure if I'm one of the "wikiwarriors" who allegedly breaks the rules to push my POV and attack the newbies, but I think if someone feels this way, they should be specific, and not simply talk about "A good many (not all of course) of my opposition" or "There seems to be a certain pattern emerging wrt the oppose voters".


 * Sincerely, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the very links you provided were the clearest example that your vote was personally motivated, rather than out of concern for the project. A simple "I don't think he'd make a good admin" would have been fine, but the extended mudslinging (so great in size as to require being moved out of the voting comments) speaks for itself. Have you read Spleemans list of "misdeeds" on my part, or looked into him and his edits? I am so deeply unconcerned by such paltry evidence that I've mentioned it to 172 for example, someone whom I have a RfAR against, and who would surely make use of any legitimate information&#8217;s (such as in his own, failed RfAR) against me. If you think about it, the sheer number of retracted and failed RfAR's should say something about the evidence against me. Frankly, we are a very long way from an amiable relationship; try as I might to place things in order. I'm sorry that I don't feel you make a good mediator, and that you felt a need to embarrass or harass me on so many occasions, but if you'd like to repair our relations, some reflection on your own misdeeds might be in order. Sam [Spade] 16:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I take issue with this type of sweeping yet vague pronouncement. Who are these "frequent rule breakers" you speak of? Who are these admins, this so-called "in-crowd" who "are of the opinion that admins are above the rules"? Who are these users who "bully and malign" newbies? Who are these "well-liked longterm regulars who do as they please while the community looks the other way"? Sorry, but I think this is all a load of codswallop, as my grandmother used to say.

I've read a lot, over the last year, of complaints like these, but have yet to see any credible evidence that anything like this is really going on. I do know of a few users who are less than collegiate with other users, and a few people who like to grandstand and/or behave as though they own certain articles, but generally other users managage to keep them contained. I don't know of any admin who has gone on the type of rampage you suggest above, and frankly, I think this is just a lot of hot air designed to help you in your bid for sysopping. That's fair enough; you're allowed to campaign on your own behalf. But if you're going to slander 20-odd users (the ones who've voted against you) then you'd better be prepared to back up your wild claims with some hard evidence.

As to your candidacy, in my experience you have tended towards playing Devil's advocate a little too much, something I believe you've admitted to, seemingly with not a little pride. The rigidity of your personal beliefs has, on more than a few occasions, led to your vigourously pursuing a non-neutral point of view on certain topics, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts your sometimes offensive opinions. For these reasons, as well as those stated above, I remain opposed.

By the way, you do know what they say about those who play Devil's advocate? They become the Devil.

Exploding Boy 17:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're angry, please be angry at me, because I mentioned it. Many of the oppose voters are voting for valid reasons, I'm sure!
 * Some of the names are familiar from RfAr, RfC and Quickpolls though. They're sometimes known as the "wikiwarriors", I think. Kim Bruning 20:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The truth is the only valid objections to me is that I have disagreed w certain persons re: controvercial issues, and because I take admins and other popular rule breakers to task. (This indented paragraph placed here by AndyL)

This is pretty much what I mean when I say that Sam is unable to accept crticism and is unable to be self-critical and makes it quite clear why he shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps when Sam grows up a bit and is less prone to rationalise away all and any critical comments he'll be able to be trusted with greater responsibility. Also, I think an admin should be something of a role model as an editor and someone who habitually misspells words like contraversial shows he doesn't put the needed care into this writing and editing. AndyL 21:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam needs 40 to 60 additional 'support' votes, to become an admin. I think the fact that so many of us with whom he tangled in the past are showing that we trust him now, is heartwarming and encouraging for him. Read the parables of the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son, in the Bible, and you'll understand this a little better. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please Ed, this is a family forum. No kinky parables. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Sam is thrilled at being the centre of attention. It's a shame he's not taking seriously the critical comments people are making AndyL 21:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I take some more seriously than others, I will admit. If a few of those who suprised and gladened me with their support had felt a need to vote against me, I would have spent some time re-examining my place here. Some of the votes against do concern me, and if you look into what I have said above, I made it pretty clear that those who oppose my adminship simply because they don't feel I am well suited to the job are doing nothing wrong in my eyes. While I might like to persuade them otherwise, I take no issue w their stance. That said, those who want to call me names, or sling mud aught find a better use of their time, and I do sincerely disrespect their position. As Jimbo has made clear as often as possible, there is alot to be said for those who take the high road. The "because he's bad, I should be bad too" argument is as fallacious as it is unflattering to those who make it. I recommend to all of those who think I'm downright "bad" to take a long, hard look at the evidence against me, and give some thought to how convincing it really is. Sam [Spade] 12:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. People should definitely have a look at the links you provide above. Frankly, I'm very surprised you posted them here; they're quite damning. Exploding Boy 17:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Damning"? That's a big word, so I took it seriously, and went and reviewed a random sample of the evidence in question. I haven't actually seen much that wasn't inside normal rules. Could you please enlighten me, by giving a specific example? Thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 17:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Follow the link marked "evidence" in Sam's post, above. Exploding Boy 17:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's look at that. Ok, so ignoring conflicts with wikiwarriors... Then there's mostly personal bias, more personal bias... which... seems to be amenable to compromise, so permitted. Allegations of behaviour contrary to wikipolicy ... buuuut ... no evidence actually given in that part of the page.


 * Right, ok, so that's done looking it through again. With due respect to User:Spleeman, this isn't behaviour to do with gaining adminship or not, so my vote remains support so far. I was speed-reading since it's a lot of text, so I'm wondering if I may have missed anything important? Kim Bruning 18:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New attempt at consensus
I think we need to treat this request just like an article dispute - work towards some agreement. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain this is a very useful exercise. It is obvious that community sentiment on Sam Spade has been shifting. I think adminship is a bigger deal than "no big deal" but not this big a deal. If the nomination fails, and he continues to improve his community status, a new proposal can always be brought up in a month or later. -- Cecropia | explains it all® 20:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For those voting "Oppose" or "Neutral", on the presumption that sysop status is "No big deal", do you currently believe that User:Sam Spade can never be trusted with sysop access?
 * Yes. I believe that he can never be trusted. RickK 19:44, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If sysop status is so unimportant than why don't we give it to everyone? As for the question I won't say never, Sam is young and somewhat immature but not incorrigible. AndyL 23:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Six months or so of generally good behaviour. Actually living up to the standards of civility he expects in others would be nice (eg not unilaterally imposing contraversial edits particularly when there is either a consensus against them or strong opposition to them on Talk pages, ending the habit of insulting people and perhaps actually taking criticisms seriously rather than dismissing them. Less partisanship, more even handedness in edits etc. Desisting from frivolous RfCs would be a start. AndyL 23:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * For those voting "Oppose" or "Neutral", what actions or words would you accept in order to support User:Sam Spade as an admin?
 * I would like to see Sam involved in far less article disputes. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to give some sort of objective measure for this? How much time and how many fewer disputes? For you, is a discussion held on a Talk page considered a dispute, or are you referring to main article edit "wars"? -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many less or how much time. I just think that Sam is, by and large, involved in too much edit warfare.  After seeing how edit warrior User:Jayjg has misused adminship, I don't think people that edit war over controversial articles frequently can be trusted to use admin powers fairly and without preferce to their personal opinions.  As far as my definition of "dispute", I'm referring to main page article edit wars.  Discussions on talk pages are a good thing.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  20:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you look back in his contribs and find me the last main article "edit war" that Sam was a part of? Perhaps the last couple? -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * In the past, Sam has edit-warred on Efraín Ríos Montt, Nazism, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, Adolf Hitler... that I personally know of. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's only fair to add that many of those edit wars were with other admins. Very Verily 23:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's also just as fair to point out the dates and circumstances of Sam's last edits to those pages -- Efraín Ríos Montt-Aug 30, Nazism-Oct 3 (many edits, but no indication of any "war"), Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration-Aug 6 (talk page, not an article), Adolf Hitler-Sep 27 (but last "contested" edits were from Aug 11).  Is it possible that you may be over-valuing these when it comes to your vote?  -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything that would change my vote. Maybe if he would EVER apologize to me for calling me a vandal, but even then, I doubt it.  *RickK 19:44, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure which incident you are talking about, possibly this? If so, I appologise for my strong wording. I can certainly see your position in hindsight, that altering another users name might be similar to altering what they have written, etc.. Also, there were a few ocaisions in the past where I foolishly thought you were user:RK, and made statements which probably made no sense, or seemed rude or innaccurate (I believe I said at one point that you were a Maimonidian, something which probably at best seemed bizarre, and at worst could have been seen as insulting. That was based on a conversation with RK, who I mistakenly thought you were for some time after coming to the wiki. So I appologise for that, and if there are some other unresolved issues, please do let me know, I have no interest in perpetuating an antagonistic relationship. Heck, even if you do think I am a troll or vandal, reforming me might be worthwhile, considering the large number of my edits (12,000+ and counting...). Sam [Spade] 13:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam asked me on IRC to give this another look over, and I did. At first, I was contemplating changing my vote, until I saw his responses on this page and on the adminship page itself. I think Andy's statement (I think Sam is thrilled at being the centre of attention. It's a shame he's not taking seriously the critical comments people are making) says it all. Sam's been around a long time, and there's every chance, if he keeps improving his behaviour, that I'll support him in time. But this attitude of "thanks to my supporters, but those who are against me are wrong and/or stupid" is the biggest problem - people are highlighting legitimate issues, and he's ignoring the criticism. Ambi 08:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see you have misunderstood me. If you scroll up and read over my statements again, I think you will find I make it clear that "I take some more seriously than others". Things like this are complete garbage however, and I have little respect for those who feel a need to smear me in such a fashion. That said, there are some legitimate objections, mainly that I am controversial, had some edit wars in the past (I think a good review of my contributions will make it pretty clear I an no "edit warrior"), and so forth. In any case, thank you for coming back to re-examine your vote, and I hope to impress you with my responsiveness to legitimate criticism in the future :) and to everyone, feel free to drop me a note if you have any Sam [Spade] 13:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * For those voting "Support" or "Neutral", what, if any, evidence of past behaviour would you accept in order to oppose User:Sam Spade as an admin?
 * I suppose I might accept evidence showing Sam has broken any established policies, rather than "etiquette". Perhaps if I saw something that marked him as a deletionist, I'd change my vote, but that's a personal choice. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care if he is a deletionist or not. In order to vote against him I'd need to be convinced that he'd abuse admin powers. Since admins are bound by rules, abusing the powers means breaking the rules. So show me occasions where he has broken policies. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For those voting "Support" or "Neutral", have you examined User:Sam Spade's comments about adminship in this RfA, and would you accept his own dismissal of the responsibilities as a reason to oppose his becoming an admin?
 * Not at all. It seems to be that many, many admins have sysop rights, yet rarely use them. The "mop and bucket" is just made available, nothing says you must use it on a daily basis. In fact, I think Sam is more qualified to judge when to use those rights than most long-time admins. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I'd be more worried about someone saying they intended to make heavy use of admin powers than someone who thinks they'd rarely need to. Very Verily  00:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No. It's not an issue in my mind. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For those voting "Support", what course of action do you propose be taken if User:Sam Spade were to become an admin and subsequently mis-use his sysop rights?
 * Any use of sysop rights can be reversed, and many sysop choices are reversed on a daily basis. Defining what "mis-use" is has to this day never resulted in a firm policy.  If Sam were to mis-use those rights in a way I objected to, I myself feel no qualms about being the first in line to take him to task about it and follow through with the options currently available (RfC, RfAr, etc.).  At this time, though, I think that would not happen with Sam. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Totally false. Sysops are never desysopped.  We shouldn't start with saying that Sam Spade can be desysopped if he does wrong, because it is inevitable that he will do wrong, and it will be virtually impossible to get him desysopped.  RfC and RfA do not work.  RickK 19:44, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * True that, my brother! blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  22:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, sysops have been desyopped in the past and no doubt they will be again in the future. Have there actually been any serious requests for desyopping of admins from the AC? The AC wont act unless they are asked to. If Sam does wrong, and I don't see anything inevitable about it, I will do the same as I've done for other admins in the past. I will revert him, then I will have a chat with him on his talk page. I have done this many times before with other admins and will continue to do so in the future as I believe friendly talk is by far the best way of dealing with errant behaviour. If however a consistant pattern of bad behaviour emerges then I will put a request for arbitrartion in myself asking for desysopping. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There's been one temporary desysopping, and one permanent one, to my knowledge. I don't want to name names, but there's some people who would not still be sysops if we had a functioning desysopping system. Ambi 08:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Two permanent de-op'ings: Uwe Kils and 168.... Very Verily 09:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Two de-oppings does not a working system make. Ambi 10:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, it was just a datum. However, I'm not sure what you have in mind as a "functioning desysopping system".  As of now it seems only extreme circumstances provoke de-sysopping.  Some might think that is a functioning system, as they don't want admins vulnerable to the vindictive attacks that certain duties bring.  I don't share this view, but the question is, are there (other) cases of past misconduct by admins which definitely should have been dealt with by de-opping? Very Verily  11:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely should have been dealt with by de-opping? Our standards in that respect are so low that that would be almost impossible. I agree that admins should be difficult to desysop, due to the same vindictive attacks. But as it stands, it's practically impossible to see action taken, and at least one sysop appears to be currently proving this. Ambi 13:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(deindenting) I don't see any current requests for desysopping from the arbitration comittee. I know you don't want to name any names, but i honestly don't know who you are talking about. Actually i think not naming names is the core of the problem. As far as I am aware, we do have methods for desysopping, but people are not prepared to actually use them. My standards for deopping are as follows. Admin has to break established rules for admin behaviour. i.e. innapropriatly deletion, blocking or protection. The action should be deliberate, I don't want people de-opped for making a mistake, The action should be repeated, I don't want people de-opped for isolated incidents. If I were to see someone (Sam or anyone) doing that I'd request arbitration. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 16:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that the 168... issue was a single incident (DNA), albeit a quite deliberate one. So perhaps the rule would be best stated, it must be repeated behavior unless it annoys someone important.  (Also, de-opping talk on the mailing list re Zero0000 seems to be over one incident.)  (I'm of course describing here, not prescribing.) Very Verily  20:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify. The rules are my own personal rules. I wouldn't be prepared to push de adminship of anyone for a single isolated incident. Others may well be. The point I was really trying to make though,is that people often state "we have no way of getting rid of rogue admins" and yet I see no evidence of them even trying to. I also think is very unfair to not support adminship of one person based on the behaviour of other 'bad admin's' behaviour Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade:


 * From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
 * Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing"
 * Attempts to sugarcoat racist views
 * The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim.
 * Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
 * Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
 * User_talk:Andries
 * Talk:Nazism
 * From Talk:Socialism:
 * "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
 * "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman)
 * "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10)
 * More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
 * Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
 * Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking.

Yes, this has already been discussed, see above. Kim Bruning 13:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * IZAK there is no need to spam everyone's talk page with this. Interested parties will read it here. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 17:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, this is a very serious matter, and alerting others concerned with the CREDIBILITY of Wikipedia to the existence of SamSpades/JackLynch/etc pro-Nazi statements and other activities as recorded by User:Spleeman/Sam Spade should not be deemed as "spamming", but it is rather a public service shedding some needed light on self-imposed darkness, even at the 11th hour. IZAK 21:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like a straight fowards smear campaign to me. I note that a least one person has now voted in favour of adminship for Sam Spade because of it. I doubt that was the result your were looking for? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I just want to make clear that the direction of my vote was not influenced by IZAK's campaign - just the decision to state my opinion (but Teresa's point is still valid of course) -- sannse (talk) 22:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This sort of attack campaign is exactly what should NOT be happening here. I find it hypocritical to accuse someone, yet use these tactics. I have added IZAK's action related to this vote to the RFC that already exists against him.  Please see Requests for comment/IZAK. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)


 * We must make an admin out of Sam. This is one of his "victims" speaking, in respect to meritocracy, and with due respect for his "opponent" Sam in matters of iridology. If we don't admin Sam, we give the world a pitiful image of Wiki - something like "smear, smear, there is always some dirt left out of a smear campaign". And look, smearing always works - it prevents people who meritocratically deserve to be admin to actually not making it to the admin position. Sam must be an admin. Highly recommended! - irismeister 17:04, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Last minute smear campaign smacks of dirty tricks.
Sam's political views are irrelevant, except to the extent they may improve the diversity on the site. His objections to God not being capitalized and to "right wing" characterizations appear well founded, especially from a US perspective, where the right wing is more equivilent to "classical or constitutional liberalism", than to the totalilitarianism associated with the right and the left (sheesh, what a choice) in Europe. I've always advoated a left-right totalitarian-anarchy scale.

What I do see troublesome about Sam's contribution, is that they are often unsubstantitive wise cracks rather that comments which will further the discussion, I'd have to see the context however. Sometimes, such comments are to mimic or mock the lack of substance in an opposing post, by clever copying of the phrasiology. I would be inclined to switch to neutral on my vote, and investigate further, if this did not appear to be an underhanded late attack.--Silverback 23:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tactics used against Sam are dirty ad hominem, personal attacks and much worse. They remind me of my personal experience with the dreaded Securitate. As long as we live in a free world (don't we?) and freedom of speech is guaranteed (isn't it any more?), the attempt to criminalize thoughtful, deep expressions of one's opinions are themselves criminal. They will be legally prosecuted, as intellectual harassment, intimidation, smear and attempted libel. Wikipedia must remain free, and a sort of last rampart in the long fight against censorship. All legal means will be used, if ever again Sam is subject to spam, and smear campaigns, trust me! This quest for justice is far more important than a case study - even sf it looks so academically indigest. This is a matter of principle, since we're not into witch hunting. Frankly, I'm disgusted to see that in the "free" world things are actively continuing whatever I thought I left behind when I sneaked out of the realm of Stalinist dictatorship. Duh! Highly not recommended! - irismeister 17:15, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)


 * Please see No legal threats before I feel a need to refer you to the AC (again). Pakaran. 19:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did. I always do. Please see Justice before I feel that urge to remind you too the absolute need for Justice! Especially in an increasingly disoriented society, with fake anchors, fake ideals and fake idols. Justice is never a threat, dummy! It's just that - Justice - jay, u, es, te, eye, see, eee flat - or we won't need it at all! If justice is a threat, we'll call war peace, idiots genii and yourself a white dove. Threaten me with your  feelings  of silencing me using a pack of dovish wolfs as you did in the past, and you know, in the same breath we'll call primesters by their name of pacifying nocular terrosts ! - irismeister 20:14, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)


 * Umm.. Yeah! ;) Anyhow, I am going to assume Dan is saying he intends to protect my email account from spam, via all legal means possible. This is highly appreciated, as is the 13th hour defense. I will point out tho that the vote is over, and that I didn't get 80% or whatever was needed, so lets move on now, and try this again next year :D Sam [Spade] 20:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, Sam, count on me! Please forgive me for being late - I was enjoying a serial 24-hour bans and I didn't even know when I was not banned :O) - irismeister 20:31, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

All Hail Discordia
"persistently eristic"... :) Martin 18:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess now that Sam is not up for an adminship he can feel safe reverting to form as a rude jerk. Oh well, I had hoped he was capable of change. AndyL 21:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lucky for you, you posses the correct POV, so your rudeness wasn't enough to rule you out of adminship ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness will be enough to rule you out of being an arbitrator, though AndyL 01:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to drag up this on a talk page of a request over a month gone? What purpose is this serving for anyone? Shane King 01:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

AndyL is a good editor, something I know because he has aggravated me enough in the past that I reviewed his edits, and found that when he's not trying to argue with / annoy me, he makes pretty good contributions. Unfortunately for the two of us, we run into each other quite a bit, and don't seem to get along well at all. I've suggested mediation in the past, and he's attempted arbitrating me in the past, but neither of us has thus far had any success. I suppose it will just have to sort itself out in time, since neither of us seems to be going anywhere. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just *try* to live by the manners you suggest others follow and avoid being rude by telling people to bug off and the like. AndyL 12:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do try. For example, I was going to say "bugger off, Andy", but I thought about how that would have been rude, so I decided on "bug" off, as in shooing an insect. It seemed to me to get the point across w/o being excessive (lot of good it did). Anyhow... isn't there an article you could be editing? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You didn't need to say anything. Now you just need to apologise if you're sincere about being mannerly. BTW, "bug off" and "bugger off" mean the same thing. AndyL 15:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like your right (I looked into it). I appologise, bug off is much ruder than I had intended to be. If I have something so horrible to say to you in the future, I'll send it by email ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted. AndyL 17:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)