Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:57, 8 August 2005 editKim Bruning (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,995 edits →Regarding my past conflict with Sam Spade: rm 1 line, didn't help clarity← Previous edit Revision as of 03:17, 8 August 2005 edit undoAdraeus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,461 editsm punctuationNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
# '''Support'''. Good judgement, good temperament. --] (] 13:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. Good judgement, good temperament. --] (] 13:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. ] ] 14:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. ] ] 14:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
# '''support''' ] <small>]</small> 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. ] <small>]</small> 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'm quite surprised he/she isn't already an admin. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 17:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. I'm quite surprised he/she isn't already an admin. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 17:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. ] 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Mature and reasonable. -] 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. Mature and reasonable. -] 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#]|] 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. ]|] 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A highly intelligent editor, and a man of integrity. ] 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. A highly intelligent editor, and a man of integrity. ] 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Seems generally civil, even in dealings with Sam Spade. ] 21:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. Seems generally civil, even in dealings with Sam Spade. ] 21:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. I don't often vote, but I see no reason this should fail. ] ] 21:54, 2005 August 6 (UTC) # '''Support'''. I don't often vote, but I see no reason this should fail. ] ] 21:54, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
# '''Support''', positive experience. ] 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. Positive experience. ] 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Strong contributor, generally reasonable even in the face of severe provocation. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 06:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC) # '''Support'''. Strong contributor, generally reasonable even in the face of severe provocation. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 06:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#: Can you show me some recent examples? ] 12:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC) #: Can you show me some recent examples? ] 12:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. ] 12:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Support'''. ] 12:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Another battleground (Success ]). ] 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Another battleground (Success ]). ] 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] 23:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC) #'''Support'''. ] 23:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''
#Disruptive, partisan, look at his ] or . ]] 03:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Disruptive, partisan, look at his ] or . ] 03:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#:*On the interests of full disclosure, voters should also take a look at ]. --] 03:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC) #:*On the interests of full disclosure, voters should also take a look at ]. --] 03:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor. Exhibits ]ish tendencies with the nominating administrator that are unhealthy for Misplaced Pages and may unduly bias the administrator pool. ] 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor. Exhibits ]ish tendencies with the nominating administrator that are unhealthy for Misplaced Pages and may unduly bias the administrator pool. ] 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' -- I can confirm his cliqueish tendencies based on his behavior at ] 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.--] 07:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. I can confirm his cliqueish tendencies based on his behavior at ] 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.--] 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 , a point I made clear in the article's talk page. ] 08:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC) #::*For the record I sought page protection because Silverback repeatedly flouted the consensus of the participants on the article , a point I made clear in the article's talk page. ] 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.--] 08:33, August 6, 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.--] 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 ] 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) --] 16:26, 6 August 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 ] 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) --] 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. --] 18:30, August 6, 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. --] 18:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' No mention of dealing with vandalism anywhere in this nomination. Seems to be obsessed with ]. ] 10:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. No mention of dealing with vandalism anywhere in this nomination. Seems to be obsessed with ]. ] 10:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#:Obsession? FeloniousMonk wants an apology from Sam Spade for e-mailing him the message similar to: "Fuck you, you rat bastard." Considering that I want Sam Spade banned for his many transgressions, the fact that FeloniousMonk would settle with Sam Spade for an apology, which Sam Spade has refused to provide for several months, demonstrates that FeloniousMonk is not obsessed; instead, he is honorable in the sense that any attack on his integrity will be countered unrelentingly. The world is lucky to have such men who care enough about their own name to defend it. ] 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC) #:Obsession? FeloniousMonk wants an apology from Sam Spade for e-mailing him the message similar to: "Fuck you, you rat bastard." Considering that I want Sam Spade banned for his many transgressions, the fact that FeloniousMonk would settle with Sam Spade for an apology, which Sam Spade has refused to provide for several months, demonstrates that FeloniousMonk is not obsessed; instead, he is honorable in the sense that any attack on his integrity will be countered unrelentingly. The world is lucky to have such men who care enough about their own name to defend it. ] 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#::Asking for an apology is reasonable. But look at his talk page. Look at his archives. He is letting Sam control his life. ] 10:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC) #::Asking for an apology is reasonable. But look at his talk page. Look at his archives. He is letting Sam control his life. ] 10:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' at least until evidence of resolution of dispute with Sam Spade, ] 17:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC) #:::I seriously doubt Sam Spade is in control of anything. ] 03:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. At least until evidence of resolution of dispute with Sam Spade, ] 17:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#:The only resolution of a conflict with Sam Spade is the removal of Sam Spade from the Misplaced Pages populace. ] 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC) #:The only resolution of a conflict with Sam Spade is the removal of Sam Spade from the Misplaced Pages populace. ] 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
#:Only Felonious appears obsessed with Sam, ] 04:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. --] ] 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --] ] 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. ] 14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose'''. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. ] 14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Felonious appears obsessed with Sam. Disruptive. Partisan. ] 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
⚫ #'''Oppose'''. Controversy = no support from ] 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (p.s. remember this is a vote on adminship, not how good an editor a person is, so dont take it personally!)
#'''Strong Oppose''' Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Felonious appears obsessed with Sam. Disruptive. Partisan. ] 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
⚫ #'''Sorry''', but controversy = no support from ] 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (p.s. remember this is a vote on adminship, not how good an editor a person is, so dont take it personally!)


'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''
Line 70: Line 70:
**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. ] 19:44, 6 August 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. ] 19:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
**Misplaced Pages editors are perfectly entitled to their private communications, including about matters related to Misplaced Pages. A number of avenues are available for this, and so long as people are not trying to dictate Misplaced Pages policy in private, there is nothing wrong with it. If you're concerned that people have too close a relationship based on possible private discussions, you can oppose the nomination, and since both of you are already doing that I don't see why you need additional "documents". --] 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC) **Misplaced Pages editors are perfectly entitled to their private communications, including about matters related to Misplaced Pages. A number of avenues are available for this, and so long as people are not trying to dictate Misplaced Pages policy in private, there is nothing wrong with it. If you're concerned that people have too close a relationship based on possible private discussions, you can oppose the nomination, and since both of you are already doing that I don't see why you need additional "documents". --] 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
***I agree w Michael Snow, one too many private documents have already been disclosed ;) ]] 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC) ***I agree w Michael Snow, one too many private documents have already been disclosed ;) ] 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
****Really? It certainly runs counter to the wiki philosophy of openness and transparency. And it certainly undermines the self-righteous mocking tone of the wikipedia article about the "wrong version", perhaps there is something to the conspiracy and collusion theories.--] 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC) ****Really? It certainly runs counter to the wiki philosophy of openness and transparency. And it certainly undermines the self-righteous mocking tone of the wikipedia article about the "wrong version", perhaps there is something to the conspiracy and collusion theories.--] 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
***** Who is friends with who is relevant (who BLINDLY sides with who is the real issue). Making undisclosing documents "illegal" will mean that only those willing to break the rules will have use of backchannel communications (sort of like gun control laws). The issue is building a great wikipedia. The evidence on the article pages and talk pages is the evidence for and against THAT. Unending searches for information that will, when found, prove your point is done in Congress and the courts (SCO vs. IBM) but has no place here. ] 14:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC) ***** Who is friends with who is relevant (who BLINDLY sides with who is the real issue). Making undisclosing documents "illegal" will mean that only those willing to break the rules will have use of backchannel communications (sort of like gun control laws). The issue is building a great wikipedia. The evidence on the article pages and talk pages is the evidence for and against THAT. Unending searches for information that will, when found, prove your point is done in Congress and the courts (SCO vs. IBM) but has no place here. ] 14:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Line 113: Line 113:
::::: I do this kind of thing dealing with conflicts all across the wiki (and off it), not just between sam and fm, or sam and you. What makes you think you're more or less important than others? <small>''(Err, well ok, so I like you folks, so sue me ;-) ) ''</small>. ] 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ::::: I do this kind of thing dealing with conflicts all across the wiki (and off it), not just between sam and fm, or sam and you. What makes you think you're more or less important than others? <small>''(Err, well ok, so I like you folks, so sue me ;-) ) ''</small>. ] 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::Sounds like an unsubstantiated personal attack from an admin who recently blocked Kim amid questionable circumstances. ]] 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC) ::Sounds like an unsubstantiated personal attack from an admin who recently blocked Kim amid questionable circumstances. ] 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


:It was not questionable, even Kim conceded that it . Although you are free to add it to one of your infemous ''hit lists.'' ] 22:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) :It was not questionable, even Kim conceded that it . Although you are free to add it to one of your infemous ''hit lists.'' ] 22:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:17, 8 August 2005

FeloniousMonk

Vote here (22/9/3) 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 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 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 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Reasonable, rational, objective, consistent, and persistent. That's a real monk. Adraeus 06:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Good judgement, good temperament. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I'm quite surprised he/she isn't already an admin. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. FireFox 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Mature and reasonable. -Willmcw 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. A highly intelligent editor, and a man of integrity. FuelWagon 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Seems generally civil, even in dealings with Sam Spade. Exploding Boy 21:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. I don't often vote, but I see no reason this should fail. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  18. Support. Positive experience. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Strong contributor, generally reasonable even in the face of severe provocation. Jayjg 06:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    Can you show me some recent examples? Kim Bruning 12:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. jni 12:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Another Sam Spade and Co. battleground (Success Sam Spade). El_C 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. freestylefrappe 23:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Disruptive, partisan, look at his talk page or history. Sam Spade 03:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor. Exhibits cliqueish tendencies with the nominating administrator that are unhealthy for Misplaced Pages 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 , 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.--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)
    Obsession? FeloniousMonk wants an apology from Sam Spade for e-mailing him the message similar to: "Fuck you, you rat bastard." Considering that I want Sam Spade banned for his many transgressions, the fact that FeloniousMonk would settle with Sam Spade for an apology, which Sam Spade has refused to provide for several months, demonstrates that FeloniousMonk is not obsessed; instead, he is honorable in the sense that any attack on his integrity will be countered unrelentingly. The world is lucky to have such men who care enough about their own name to defend it. Adraeus 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Asking for an apology is reasonable. But look at his talk page. Look at his archives. He is letting Sam control his life. Ryan 10:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I seriously doubt Sam Spade is in control of anything. Adraeus 03:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. At least until evidence of resolution of dispute with Sam Spade, SqueakBox 17:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    The only resolution of a conflict with Sam Spade is the removal of Sam Spade from the Misplaced Pages populace. Adraeus 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. --malathion 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Kim Bruning 14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Felonious appears obsessed with Sam. Disruptive. Partisan. WAS 4.250 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Controversy = no support from Martin (Bluemoose) 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (p.s. remember this is a vote on adminship, not how good an editor a person is, so dont take it personally!)

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)
  3. Support. After browsing through his contributions list, it was pretty obvious that he had done a lot of work around here. Edit summaries are great, and the user shows some traits that are suitable for administrating Misplaced Pages. I'll give my support. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Neutral. Good editor and mature as FeloniousMonk's supporters say, but I'll wait until we figure out about his disputes with Sam and his alleged "disruptions" and incivility. He could be a great admin, though, but I think I'll wait. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. While I am not familiar enough with FM to make a vote either way, I note that the potential base of administrators would be small indeed if past conflict with Sam Spade were to become disqualifying. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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)
So in the future, you think that having Jimbo continue to manage the arbitration process this way is better than having the community arrange things on its own? --Michael Snow 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the ideal solution is still an election open to the entire community. It's widely recognized that a necessary component of a free and fair election is open and unrestricted public discussion of the various candidates worthiness to serve. I think the wikipedia community recognizes this; most other elections here do not limit the comments of those voting to only positive comments; RFA being a prime example. I agree that the discussions around candidates are often disruptive, such is the nature of elections, but I don't agree that the disruption's net effect to the community is perforce detrimental. I feel there are ways acceptable to the community to accommodate voters need to express their support or concern; as seen here for example. FeloniousMonk 03:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 ----- 05:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC) After reviewing the ongoing dispute between him and User:Sam Spade I'm going to withdraw my vote until this can all be figured out. Jtkiefer ----- 03:40, August 7, 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)
    • Misplaced Pages editors are perfectly entitled to their private communications, including about matters related to Misplaced Pages. A number of avenues are available for this, and so long as people are not trying to dictate Misplaced Pages policy in private, there is nothing wrong with it. If you're concerned that people have too close a relationship based on possible private discussions, you can oppose the nomination, and since both of you are already doing that I don't see why you need additional "documents". --Michael Snow 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree w Michael Snow, one too many private documents have already been disclosed ;) Sam Spade 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? It certainly runs counter to the wiki philosophy of openness and transparency. And it certainly undermines the self-righteous mocking tone of the wikipedia article about the "wrong version", perhaps there is something to the conspiracy and collusion theories.--Silverback 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • Who is friends with who is relevant (who BLINDLY sides with who is the real issue). Making undisclosing documents "illegal" will mean that only those willing to break the rules will have use of backchannel communications (sort of like gun control laws). The issue is building a great wikipedia. The evidence on the article pages and talk pages is the evidence for and against THAT. Unending searches for information that will, when found, prove your point is done in Congress and the courts (SCO vs. IBM) but has no place here. WAS 4.250 14:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

While the cat is away, the mice can play

I was away at wikimania when Feloniousmonk got nominated.

Feloniousmonk

  • Does not understand policy (he did not understand the foundation issues at our last interaction).
  • Is incapable of resolving disputes on his own.
    He has one or more old standing disputes open at this point in time, which he typically spams widely across talkpages.

Feloniousmonk therefore fails my basic admin criteria. Further:

  • Feloniousmonk considers rules first, encyclopedia second.
  • Feloniousmonk has been known to "bite the newbies".
  • Together with others he caused such a huge mess in disrupting the last arbcom elections, that Jimbo is seriously considering never holding another arbcom election again.

These are some of the reasons why I oppose.

Kim Bruning 12:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Regarding my past conflict with Sam Spade

I acknowledge my past conflict Sam Spade and I sincerely hope that the matter is now in the past, and so I will make no further comments, other than to say that if I do become an admin I would recuse myself from any occasion where I would use my blocking powers against Sam. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, You were hosting an attack page against among others sam spade as early as month]. You would recuse? That's a term used in the arbitration committee, nowhere else. Blocking Powers? Eh? You're generally don't need to use any special tools, if you're an admin just a word can cause disaster on its own, so what would you do vs. for instance sam, or if someone just angered you? And would you use your blocking powers to block anonymous editors, for instance? Kim Bruning 19:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You already voted to oppose him. Asking further questions would just be argumentative. --malathion 19:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No it would not, as his question is of interest to those who might still make up or change their minds, including maybe him, who knows, though anyone can change their mind up till the last moment. I would like to hear Felonious' response to Kim's questions, SqueakBox 19:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kim's bias in tolerating abuse of policy by Sam Spade, and resisting FM's efforts to curtail it, is well documented on Misplaced Pages. El_C 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey! No Fair! That's not true. I know you know better from personal experience! Kim Bruning 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough: The response to SS' copyvio claims and subsequent apology, for example, I felt, was less than evenhanded. Or, for example, your response to his Rogue Admin sig campaign against myself (while indeed a protest) was phrased in too lighthearted, not critical enough of a way. Yes, this is my interpretation. El_C 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't get people to do things that they are not willing to do. I can only ask them to do things that they were already willing to do one way or another.
  • I did get sam to retract his copyright issue
  • I did get sam to try to apologise at least
  • I did convince sam to apologise to you too.
I do this kind of thing dealing with conflicts all across the wiki (and off it), not just between sam and fm, or sam and you. What makes you think you're more or less important than others? (Err, well ok, so I like you folks, so sue me ;-) ) . Kim Bruning 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like an unsubstantiated personal attack from an admin who recently blocked Kim amid questionable circumstances. Sam Spade 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It was not questionable, even Kim conceded that it followed policy. Although you are free to add it to one of your infemous hit lists. El_C 22:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, yup, he did block me per policy. There's some interesting details to that, indeed, but nothing to do with personal emnity, thank goodness! Kim Bruning 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing at all. Personally, I like Kim, and I consider him a valuable contirbutor and admin, these oversights that I allude to notwithstanding. El_C 23:23, 7 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.