Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk

Vote here (12/5/2) ending 01:53 13 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs)

FeloniousMonk has been registered since September 2004 and has 2,750 edits to his name, with a good balance of edits between the encyclopedia and article and user talk pages. I've come to know him as a cooperative and thoughtful editor, who shows a lot of common sense, cares about using good sources, and understands and follows our policies. I think he'll make a responsible admin, and it's my privilege to nominate him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank SlimVirgin for the nomination. FeloniousMonk 02:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Seems like he's a level-headed kinda guy. --Chris 02:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Hey, I'm taking a break, but not before I vote yes. --Cberlet 03:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. I definitely trust the judgement of Slim Redwolf24 03:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Looks good. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Despite having very few personal interactions with this user I feel that he would make a very good admin, however I am concerned that him and user:Sam Spade still have unresolved conflicts that being said I trust that Felonious Monk and Sam Spade are working towards a resolution to their dispute and that if given adminship such conflicts will not interfere with his ability to be a good admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Reasonable, rational, objective, consistent, and persistent. That's a real monk. Adraeus 06:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Good judgement, good temperament. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
11. support dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
12. Support I'm quite surprised he/she isn't already an admin. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
13. Support FireFox 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Disruptive, partisan, look at his talk page or history. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

   • On the interests of full disclosure, voters should also take a look at User:FeloniousMonk/Disturbing trends. --cesarb 03:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor. Exhibits cliqueish tendencies with the nominating administrator that are unhealthy for Wikipedia and may unduly bias the administrator pool. Rangerdude 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- I can confirm his cliqueish tendencies based on his behavior at Intelligent design where he admitted reverting not on the merits but because others had reverted the same items. He requested protection for the page, not in open channels such as the official protection page or on the talk page of a neutral admin, but instead by some other undisclosed communications channel from Slimvirgin who is evidently an admirer based on her recommendation here.--Silverback 07:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

   • For the record I sought page protection because Silverback repeatedly flouted the consensus of the participants on the article [1], a point I made clear in the article's talk page. FeloniousMonk 08:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

   • That link doesn't show where you sought protection or what your reasoning was. In addition to your backroom communications with Slimvirgin, here is evidence of your cabal-like reversion, and also that you might be an article size fundamentalist. BTW, although you speak of a "consensus" there hadn't been any votes.[2]--Silverback 08:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

   • OK, I'm supposed to on vacation, but I can't let this one stand. A full look at the history and talk page archives of Intelligent design shows several things. 1. Silverback's content has been removed over the course of several months by several editors, with the primary being ME. The page protection was supported and re-requested by Myself, supported by FuelWagon after the fact, and I saw no other opposition. Whether that is editor consensus or cabalism is your decision to make obviously. 2. the "article size fundamentalist" is again, ME. I was the primary editor to bitch and whine about the article size and demand whittling down. The fact is FM was willing to consider my position and eventually come around a little. (forgot to sign) --Tznkai 16:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

   • I didn't say he was the LEADER of the cabal, he is more of a follower. You wouldn't happen to know what his backchannel is to Slimvirgin would you? He will probably continue to be a sneaky conspirator. He will probably trade protection tit-for-tat, communicating behind the scenes, pretending to be a disinterested neutral admin, when he shows up at a page he hasn't been editing to impose protection right after a timely revert to the "right" version. --Silverback 18:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose No mention of dealing with vandalism anywhere in this nomination. Seems to be obsessed with Sam Spade. Ryan 10:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose at least until evidence of resolution of dispute with Sam Spade, SqueakBox 17:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Leaning in the direction of opposition. FM has made (and, I hope, will continue to make) positive contributions here. However, FM's aggressive style of discussion has, in my opinion, in more than one important case been a pretty severe breach of civility. I don't have much faith that FM would be able, as an admin, to control his anger at users who have displeased him in the past. I know FM won't take this well (since, as far as I can tell, he is still upset at me for an incident occurring last fall), but I have to be honest about what I see. In FM I see an editor who can and does make positive contributions here, but I do not see the necessary care in judgment, the willingness to dialogue openly, and the respect for this site's civility policy that I think of as core to the position of admin. I'm remaining neutral for now because I haven't seen much of FM's work in the last couple of months, and I'd like to peruse it and see if the issues that concern me are no longer evident. Jwrosenzweig 07:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now and await further developments. JuntungWu 09:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I would be very interested to hear how the nominee feels about this message from Jimbo Wales, in particular his comments about the last arbitration election. --Michael Snow 04:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm flattered, but don't you think I should spend some time as an admin first? ;-) OK, Jimbo is the founder and in every real sense the owner of wikipedia; as such he is entitled to run wikipedia as he sees fit. We each serve and edit here by his leave. If he chooses to appoint arbcom members rather than have them elected by the community, it is an arrangement we must all accept. We are not required to agree with any or each of Jimbo's decrees, but we are required to abide by them. Jimbo has shown himself more than willing to listen to the community. If there are people here who have concerns about arbcom members being appointed, I'd encourage them to voice them to Jimbo. Personally, I can understand why an election is not being considered; the debate that ensued over the right of voters to leave disendorsements as well as endorsements was pointless, as was the attempt to delete the disendorsements. If an election that provides a free and open forum for the exchange of all views cannot be provided or accommodated by the community, then perhaps appointments are the better solution. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Document request -- before we confirm FM as an admin all backchannel communications between FM and Slimvirgin should be disclosed, so that a fully informed decision can be made and so that we really know where he stands on the issues, and why he wasn't willing to conduct wikipedia business in an open and transparent manner.--Silverback 19:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above document request. SlimVirgin has demonstrated a tendency to coordinate editing activities with allied persons through offsite back channels in the past. Creating yet another administrator with a habit of doing this is dangerous to wikipedia by imbalancing the administrator pool. Rangerdude 19:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A: One of the admin rights I'm interested in is the ability to work with the design and content of the interface through the MediaWiki namespace. I would use my admin powers carefully and sparingly and would work to ensure that I do not violate policies, conventions and whatever trust the community places in me.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Of the articles that I've created at wikipedia, I'm particularly proud of Battle of 73 Easting, Albert Frey, E. Stewart Williams, A. Quincy Jones, and Blue Martini Software. The biographies on modernist architects and 73 Easting were satisfying because they are not the most easily researched topics and all subjects dear to my heart. For those articles I've contributed to, Faith and rationality and Intelligent design movement were both complex subjects on topics that are generally hotly contested, and the fact that both have come to this point without any significant battles has been gratifying.

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

A: The Intelligent design article has been historically a flash point, and over the last 3 months or so I've been able to work constructively with a number editors who have strong ideological views not necessarily compatible with my own and bring the article along to possibly the most complete and accurate it's ever been. There have been heated debates and a few flared tempers along the way, but by and large the team of regular editors there can be proud of their behavior, particularly in contrast to other creationism-related articles.