Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum

Malleus Fatuarum

Voice your opinion (talk page) (16/10/2); Scheduled to end 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs) - While he's not one of the "big-hitter" editors, Malleus Fatuarum (like BrownHairedGirl, LaraLove et al) is one of the unsung heroes who keep Wikipedia alive. As well as some major article writing & rewriting experience (mostly, but not exclusively, on Northern England and related topics, from Stretford to Ferret), he is one of the driving forces behind WikiProject Greater Manchester and also does a superb job at the much-maligned WP:GAC; rather than the curt "this article isn't good enough" that all too many reviewers settle for, he has a long history of doing complete rewrites of "almost good articles" rather than see them fail; it's now become part of my routine to run any new article I write or rewrite past him — he invariably finds and corrects at least a dozen mistakes I didn't even notice I'd made — and to point new users towards him for the answers to WP:MOS questions. For those who care about such things, he has over 7500 edits since February, including over 5000 in the mainspace. His talk page is an exemplary model of an editor with his finger in pies all across the mainspace, but who's not afraid to get his hands dirty patiently explaining policy & consensus to some of our more difficult characters, all the while without snapping or sulking. To pre-empt the chorus of "doesn't need the tools"; yes, he doesn't have much experience at XfD/AIV, but I totally trust him not to get involved in any area he isn't up to speed in without thoroughly understanding policy first. He's an editor to whom the less glamorous buttons would be invaluable (the ability to salvage viable material from deleted articles and build them up into valid content, for instance). He's also got that too-rare ability to tell the difference between "new user who doesn't understand policy" and "disruptive POV-pusher". I think that not only has he the potential to be one of our best admins, but given his dedication to policy, a year down the line will likely be one of our best bureaucrats and/or arbitrators. — iridescent 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very pleased to accept this nomination. I wish to withdraw from this nomination. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been rather shocked by the reaction to my nomination, much of which I feel to have been very unfair. I accepted the nomination in good faith, believing that I might be able to help in some areas of wikipedia administration. But it is apparent to me now that I am not considered sufficiently trustworthy by a significant body of editors and so I am withdrawing from this nomination.

--Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially it's quite likely that the majority of the admin work that I'll take part in will be directed towards the immediate protection of the integrity of the encyclopedia, and supporting other editors in that goal. As Iridescent quite correctly said in his nomination statement, I have not so far involved myself much in deletion debates for instance, except in cases where the article was of some personal interest. I recognise that if I were to become an admin, then I may not always have that luxury, or the luxury not to get involved in at least some of the issues raised at WP:AIN. Do I need the tools? No. Might the tools sometimes be useful? Yes.

Iridescent made the comment that I am not one of the "big-hitter" editors, and neither would I be one of the "big-hitter" admins, certainly not at first anyway. I would just be making use of whatever new tools were available to me to help other editors deal with the problems they felt were preventing them from improving the encyclopedia. And I would certainly not be making any decisions in areas where I was uncertain about policy until I felt that I fully understood both what the policy said, and more importantly, what it really meant in practice.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: It's not for me to judge, but I'm pleased with my contributions to the Greater Manchester and Good Article wikiprojects; I've also been able to help a number of articles achieve FA status. I'm also pleased that I was able to play a very small part in helping to develop the guidelines for writing about UK cities, and helping to spread the use of those guidelines. Without wishing to get into a GA vs FA pissing contest, I'd say that one that one of my best contributions to Wikipedia has been in working with other editors during the GA review process on improving articles so that they can be listed.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I doubt that anyone with more than a few mainspace edits hasn't encountered some kind of conflict, and I've certainly had some, but by and large other users rarely cause me any stress. I can think of two, perhaps three, incidents, the most serious of which is here, a disagreement about the POV of an article. I attempted to resolve that issue by discussion on the article's talk page, and by soliciting the opinion of other editors who had contributed to that article, in an attempt to achieve consensus. That particular problem was eventually solved when an independent editor on a spam patrol independently came across the article and also questioned its neutrality here. If I found myself involved in a similar situation in the future I would probably do much the same, but would perhaps be a little more likely to request some form of arbitration or independent assessment instead of waiting for it to happen. I have also had a couple of disagreements over the development of two particular articles, only one of which I would consider to be significant. In the case of this article, I felt that the changes being made to it in a premature effort to get it to FA status were actually harming the article, and even jeopardising its recently acquired GA status. The relevant discussion can be seen here and in the preceding sections. The only other minor conflict that comes to mind was here, involving a disagreement with a fellow Greater Manchester wikiproject member over the development of an article towards GA. We managed to resolve our disagreement, again by talk page discussion and by getting an independent view from a third-party. That editor and I were then able to continue working together, we got the article to GA status shortly afterwards, and we continue to work closely together on GM related articles.

In the spirit of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch, and for the sake of completeness, I perhaps ought to comment on this discussion, over the Lead section style guidelines. I did find that discussion frustrating, but what it reminded me was that there are some issues that carry a lot of baggage, and those editors like myself who haven't been around wikipedia since Adam was a boy may not be aware of those issues or their history. And by analagy, newer editors than myself may equally not be aware of policies or guidelines that have become almost second nature to me, sometimes having discovered them by innocently falling foul of them, like WP:SPAM. I remember being mortified when I was gently told off for external link spamming; so I hope that I will always at least make an effort to put myself in the other persons shoes, and try to understand the issue from their perspective, as well as state my own point of view as clearly as I can, to avoid any misunderstandings. Too often conflicts escalate because what's being read isn't what's been written.

Optional question from Epbr123:

4. After making this comment, do you still feel you were being bullied by User:Marskell? Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of raking through old coals. As a general rule I happen to believe that fault can only very rarely be allocated entirely to one or the other side of a disagreement; it is for others to judge whether what I interpreted as bullying was indeed bullying, and how much it was a reasoned and reasonable response to anything that I may have previously said or done. What I currently feel is neither here nor there. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Malleus Fatuarum's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Malleus Fatuarum: Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Malleus Fatuarum before commenting.

• I'm afraid there's a possible canvassing issue here and here. Epbr123 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  I'm familiar with the canvassing policy/guideline etc., but I can assure you these edits were made in good faith. Notice the rationale for informing these users is provided, and the fact the comment isn't solely reliant on trying to encourage other users to support. Rudget _talk 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I too believe he didn't realise he was canvassing, but I thought I'd better point it out incase it affected the outcome of the RFA. Epbr123 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have been very careful not to canvas anyone. The two users referred to asked to be informed, [1] and I simply did as they asked, with no attempt to sway their vote one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, only one asked to be informed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  It's quite possible that I may have mis-interpreted another one of the postings on my talk page. If I have, then all I can do is to apologise and hope that my mistake has caused no lasting harm. User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum#Peterborough and Blyth. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not meaning to be rude, but what does the link mean? — Rudget _{contributions} 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  I quote: "Finally, just wondered where you were upto with thinking about adminship??". --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. — iridescent 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Great contributor, great editor. As well as this, Iridescent nomination = instant support. —Qst 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. A hard working and dedicated editor. I haven't agreed with everything I've seen from Malleus Fatuarum, but he's been willing to reconsider his opinions when asked, and generally has something useful to contribute to a discussion. I'm confident that giving him admin tools would make him even more of an asset to Wikipedia than he is now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Yes, a good choice. Does what we're here to do. Majorly (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support A great editor will be even better once given admin tools Alexfusco5 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support The user will do fine, and perhaps even contribute further with the new tools . --MoRsE (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Have read conflict material - ultimately benefits outweigh risks to the ultimate task of 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, no big deal, and I don't think there's any doubts about Malleus Fatuarum's committment or trustworthiness. Lack of experience can soon be remedied by pitching him in at the deep end (it's not like it's a difficult job). Neil ☎ 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, what's there not to like. Manderiko (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - Of course. I did once offer nomination to him. Regarding the opposition, wasn't that user that was reverting Malleus using uncivil behaviour? At least that's what I think (from what I caught, it might be a different story!) Rudget _talk 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - I have always found Malleus to be helpful and civil. His heart is in the right place and I think he would make a good admin. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support. I think Malleus is a helpful, committed editor, whose contributions are civil. The contributions sometimes are assertive and possibly misinterpreted as uncivil by people who do not share his viewpoint. I think almost all existing admins would have some failings found if one had the time or motivation to dredge through their editing history, and I do not consider any of the supposed problems found so far to be of any great importance when considering his nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. I have always found Malleus helpful & he has gently guided me in making improvements to many articles. To the best of my knowledge his criticisms are always constructive.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Friendly, supportive, self-effacing. I think he would make a great admin. So he doesn't have experience in some areas, well so what, he had no reason to prior to this. The man is intelligent enough to get the experience as he goes along. No-one is born an admin, you get the job first, then you learn how to do it. As regards his conflict management. In my view one doesn't deal with conflict by bending over and puckering up. You state your case whilst simultaneously listening to objections. If they make sense then you do an about face, if they don't then you stick to your guns. I feel Malleus is man enough to do this when he's actually one of the active parties of the conflict. When he's the mediator he's level-headed and fair-minded enough to defuse any conflicts. He's got my support... cheque made out to Carl Albert Stuart Heath please Malleus, it may be quicker to use my initials though, ta ;) --WebHamster 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. A fine editor, who I have collaborated with on several articles, particularly those under WP:GM. He is someone who I have often turned to for help and ideas when I reach my own limitations and he has been more than willing to help when asked. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Support per nom and above. Although I disagree with the reasoning of the opposers, I would advise Malleus to take it slow with the tools at first, and confer with other administrators before making any potentially problematic blocks or the like. Good luck! GlassCobra 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Malleus is a very devoted and skillful article writer, and one of the few users who doesn't mind doing the dull task of copyediting, but I'm afraid I don't think he's quite ready to be an admin. He has had virtually no experience in admin related areas, so I have doubts about his need for the tools and his knowledge of some key guidelines and policies; he is still not fully aware of the guidelines in the areas he is working in at the moment, eg. here. I also don't think he is coolheaded enough; his conflict resolution skills could do with a lot of work, eg. here, here, here, here, here, here, here. When offered to be nominated for admin, he stated here that the only use for the tools he would have would be to protect articles and block editors; as he has no history of vandal fighting, I imagine he intends to use these tools during content disputes; this is something I don't feel comfortable about. Epbr123 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: In the interests of full disclosure, I believe that Epbr123 ought to have made at least a passing mention of this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't see how it was relevant. Epbr123 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose While I am pleased to see the work the user does around here, I am hesitant when it comes to their levelheadedness after seeing Epbr123's diffs shown above. Jmlk17 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Editor reverted an edit [2] on the basis of a lack of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:POV according to his edit summary, and then shoved in his own WP:OR opinion straight after.[3]. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: Just to set the record straight, I would like to point out that I did not introduce my own WP:OR opinion. Neither have I ever introduced my own WP:OR opinion, ever, in any article, and nor would I ever. I simply reverted to what had been there before here. That material is not OR, it's an established fact that had been in the article unchallenged for some time; but more to the point I didn't write it, I simply reverted to it. I agree that it would have been better if I had reverted both changes simultaneously, but I didn't. Now I know that it's a hanging offence I'll try to be more careful in the future. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   That's a good point, but as both statements were unsourced, you merely replaced one piece of OR for another. It would have been better to either remove both statements, or find a source. Epbr123 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   This is clearly not the place to discuss whether the statement that I reverted was OR or not. I was simply pointing out that I did not "shove in my own WP:OR opinion straight after", as charged, or indeed at all. I merely made two separate reversions, back to what had existed before. I have stated my belief that the material was not OR, and that it was not contentious – unsourced is not the equivalent of original research. However, I will be more careful in the future about relying on common sense to distinguish between two unsourced statements now that I have been reminded of the gravity of the matter. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Your response makes good sense, and it a legitimate reason/explanation for the diff. But the way you've challenged it is, IMHO, argumentative and for that reason my oppose stands, now based more on the assertion by Epbr123 of not being coolheaded enough, as has now been demonstrated by you within your own RfA. " This is clearly not the place to discuss whether the statement that I reverted was OR or not" sorry - this clearly is the place as it's an oppose rationale to your RFA. Regrets and best wishes, because I genuinely respect your article writing work here. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   I have to say that not only does it not strike me as argumentative, but it strikes me as quite a diplomatic way of both answering the question and nipping in the bud something that had the possibility of becoming contentious. To me that demonstrates the conflict skills others have said are lacking. --WebHamster 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   That's also a fair way of interpreting it WH, and I note your solid arguments in support. Nevertheless "Now I know that it's a hanging offence I'll try to..." also seemed rather emotive and potentialy argumentative. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm "emotive"? Probably, no doubt that's why the smiley was used (missing from your quote I see). The impression I got was a sense of wryness as opposed to argumentative. Your mileage (Kilometerage in these metric days) obviously varies. --WebHamster 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   WH. If you want to make some ad hominum attacks at me why not use my talk page as opposed to a respected editors RFA. ? I feel that "That's also a fair way of interpreting it WH" was pretty civil and in the bounds of valuable discussion. You appear not to. Elsewhere please. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Huh? I can certainly add an ad hominum attack to your talk page if you so wish, but I most certainly haven't placed one here. --WebHamster 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Your mileage (Kilometerage in these metric days) obviously varies is the best place now. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. This is about Malleus. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Sorry. I have doubts about conflict resolution skills and ability to keep cool in disputes after reviewing some of the instances where this has been an issue. The diffs above were helpful in making this assessment. Despite the meaningful contributions in terms of copy editing, I feel that its best to oppose for now to send the message that communication, keeping a level head, etc are essential to being an effective admin. Also, I see a lack of need for the mop, by your own admission. I'm more likely to support a somewhat inexperienced but aggressive vandal reverter or AfD contributor for adminship than a more experienced editor who seems a bit of a hot head. I have no doubt that adminship is in your future, but hope that you can learn to get along better with others and also take an interest in XfD, vandal cleanup, etc...—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose: I see nothing from this editor that demonstrates his knowledge of important policies, thus, I am extremely hesitant to support at this time. I'd suggest taking the recommendations given to you by User:Gaff above, and that will greatly help you in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
6. No - It pains me to oppose a great article and content writer, but the problems with conflict are, to say the least, concerning. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Per Pedro's diff. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Epbr123. NHRHS2010 talk 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose, without prejudice. I had a lengthy and difficult discussion with Malleus at WT:LEAD in September (it's not archived yet and can be read through, if voters are bored). I felt he did not have a proper understanding of our content policies, particularly Verifiability, and that he tended to be disputatious without cause. Since, we've amicably posted to the same threads at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop and I've become sure that he has the best of intentions and a desire to aid the project. But the LEAD conversation is too recent. WRT adminship, I think he ought to wait two or three months to absorb more of the P&G discussions and become better acculturated to dispute. To Malleus directly: this is without prejudice because I'm making no final claim on whether you can become an admin. I think you can and will become one; I hope you don't take this oppose as an indication that I don't value your opinions on the workshop and elsewhere. I'm just not sure you're quite ready. Marskell (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Got bored, read it and quite frankly that discussion has you coming off as the argumentative one, not Malleus. Quite a few people agreed with him. The arguments he put forward were very clear and made sense. Just because you either didn't understand him or disagreed with him should not count against him now. How he handled the discussion is much more relevant. And he remained polite, and stuck to his credible point. By the way, are "disputatious" and "acculturated" real words? --WebHamster 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Both "disputatious" and "acculturated" are real words. I'm a Canadian and type -ou where an American might type -o, but "disputatios" is not a rendering that seems intuitive, even with an American eye. On-line, I use Merriam-Webster to check these things.

   I expected a challenge of the sort you've provided. I was brusque but consistent in that discussion. I felt I was on the side of policy, that he was not, and that I had more policy experience. Indeed, the eventual consensus wording on LEAD was bascially mine. By "disputatious," I meant that Malleus was jumping between points inconsistently, thus flaming the argument. But that's just my opinion. This oppose is my opinion, and I'm entitled to give it. I've tried to make clear that I don't have any lasting malice toward Malleus at all and I hope he senses that in reading. Marskell (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough on the opinion, we all have them :). As regards the words, I asked because I'd never seen them used, and they do look a little made up. I like to used 10 bob words when tanner ones will do! So I'm adding these to my personal vocabulary for likely regurgitation later :) --WebHamster 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Is webhamster a real word? If you having nothing better to use as an argumentative defence than typos I suggest you refrain from commenting until you can add value rather than another ad hominum attack. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well there goes the WP:AGF standards. --WebHamster 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose: I must concur with Epbr123's reasoning, per the diffs there presented. Contributions seem to be top-notch, but it's the diplomacy aspect of adminship that I think could use some work. I look forward to supporting the candidate next time around. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose - concerns about WP:CIVILITY (raised above) put me off supporting. Sorry. Scarian^Talk 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Can't support after Epbr's diffs, but won't Oppose you either. Good luck anyway. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral You are a great editor who is an asset to this community. But the ability to keep cool in disputes is a major concern here. Thus, I can't support or oppose this nomination either. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)