Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 6 August 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:18, 6 August 2005 by Silverback (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

FeloniousMonk

Vote here (6/0/0) 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. 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)
  8. Support. Reasonable, rational, objective, consistent, and persistent. That's a real monk. Adraeus 06:16, August 6, 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)
  2. On the interests of full disclosure, voters should also take a look at User:FeloniousMonk/Disturbing trends. --cesarb 03:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)

Neutral


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)


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.