Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Sam Spade

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

Vote here

(25/17/3) ends 23:02, 10 Oct 2004

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. I have had many conversations with this user on MSN Messenger, and while he may be controversial to some people at some instances, overall, I think he is a very civil character, and as good (better, in fact) an administrative candidate as I was, way back when :-). Additionally, his statements regarding his prospective use of the admin powers strikes me as honest and well stated, and I seriously doubt that Sam Spade will misuse his admin powers, if this vote receives a bit more consensus, that is... ugen64 23:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
17. A. D. Hair 23:56, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
18. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
19. ffirehorse 05:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
20. VV 13:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Has made some questionable edits and judgement calls in the past, but overall is civil and responsible and I do not believe he would misuse admin privileges. VV 22:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
22. Sam has indeed helped me with a few issues in the past and I've always had well-mannered contributions from him in discussions. Fire Star 23:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
23. David Remahl 02:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. zoney ♣ talk 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. Herschelkrustofsky 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) He is committed to upholding Wikipedia policies.

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Oppose.
9. Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright troll, but sometimes he does seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, even if he has no real idea about the subject. I haven't had a dispute with him myself for months, but from what I know about his attitudes and opinions I don't think adminship is a good idea. Besides, he can continue to be friendly and greet users without being an admin. Adam Bishop 20:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. No, no, no, a THOUSAND times no. Sam Spade is a troll with a hair trigger. RickK 21:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this vote? -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
      • I do. RickK should be de-sysopped for this. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I should be de-sysopped for voting No on an admin nomination? RickK 23:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • How about for being consistantly rude and regularly biting newbies? Sam [Spade] 23:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • • Pot. Kettle. Black. RickK 23:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
                • Amen, but 'consistantly' is too strong in both cases. Regardless, rudeness is a problem, but not so great as to warrant de-sysopping. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
            • Chuckle. Funny Rick! Mark Richards 23:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Netholic: the point is the opinion expressed by the vote, not its hypocrisy. We treat it all opinions as representing truth, even if the person making it doesn't believe it. Calling it hypocrisy is a personal attack. If you have issue with RickK's hypocrisy, fine. But don't take it up on the Adminship page. This whole discussion of de-sysopping is completely irrelevant here. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
    • Rick, I oppose his adminship too, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that he is a troll. Also, the label troll is just that: a label. Branding a user a 'troll' will not help any problems Wikipedia has. Rick, I respect you a lot, but there is a tendency towards making personal attacks that isn't constructive. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
11. No, at least not yet - a POV editor, reticent to admit making a mistake or to be self-critical. Seems addicted to conflict. Does not abide by standards he expects of others (ie violates the same rules of "harmonious editing" he promotes). Tendency to be vindictive and petty. Not irredeemable but needs to show a track record of improved behaviour before he can be given anything like an adminship.AndyL 22:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. Seems too volatile and too prone to seeing only one side of an issue. I would rather not give Sam the extra rope to hang himself that adminship would provide. He has in more recent times shown more ability to stick within the letter of the Wikipedia "law", but I'm not sure we need an admin who constantly pushes almost to the edge of abuse of powers, which I fear he would. —Morven 08:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
13. 172 12:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. Charles Matthews 06:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. Unfortunetaly, in my experience, he has certainly not been a good compromiser. Sorry Sam. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. I'm sorry, I am. I like Sam, personally, and I've had many a good chat with him. But I'm not at all sure that Sam could use administrator powers fairly... he's just involved in disputes too much. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. Opposed absolutely! IZAK 21:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

2. David Cannon 02:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC). I've seen Sam about a few times. I have not personally seen anything in his behaviour to disqualify him from sysophood. Having said that, I've read a huge number of comments on user pages from other users, both positive and negative. That makes me think it best to reserve judgement for the time being. My answer, therefore, is not "NO" but "Probably yes, but not just now."
3. I've seen him a few times and liked what I saw, but just reading this RfA and his responses to it instills doubt in my mind. Not enough to vote oppose, but just enough to be unsure. –Andre (talk) 14:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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|Брайен 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:

1. 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?
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.) VV 23:05, 5 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 doesn't seem to get at the heart of it - alternative 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)

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|Брайен 14:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

See User talk:Sam Spade#Adminship 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. VeryVerily 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)

---

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

---

Comment from BCorr|Брайен: Regarding my "Oppose" vote above:

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 Wikipedia: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#.95 Mediation request: Herschelkrustofsky and AndyL.
5. I'll also note (for full disclosure) that Sam vigorously opposed my nomination to the Mediation Committee (see: Wikipedia: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.

BCorr|Брайен 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

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)