Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk
Final (64/15/9) ending 01:53 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * I see Sam Spade and Kim Bruning have drawn attention to my recent dispute with Sam. This is to reassure everyone that I take adminship very seriously. I would stick closely to the policies governing the use of admin powers, and I definitely wouldn't use that blocking power against Sam because I've had the dispute with him. Also, as far as I'm concerned, that situation is behind us, and I'd like to think we can move on. I hope this goes some way toward addressing the concerns. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 8 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 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. 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)
 * No more surprised than me. The last time I started to offer to nominate it became an unmitigated disaster. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. F i r e F o x  19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Mature and reasonable. -Willmcw 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. A highly intelligent editor, and a man of integrity. FuelWagon 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  Seems generally civil, even in dealings with Sam Spade.  Exploding Boy 21:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I don't often vote, but I see no reason this should fail. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Positive experience. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Strong contributor, generally reasonable even in the face of severe provocation. Jayjg (talk)  06:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you show me some recent examples? Kim Bruning 12:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. jni 12:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Another Sam Spade and Co. battleground (Success Sam Spade). El_C 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. freestylefrappe 23:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Incidentally, Sam Spade is a troll of long standing; I support every effort to ban him from Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Reasonable, productive editor, will be a fine admin. -- M P er el ( talk 03:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Andre ( talk ) 04:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. --Eliezer |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. David | Talk 08:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I've often found that FeloniousMonk can keep his head and keep the conversation mature when the arguments heat up. &mdash; Asbestos |  Talk   (RFC)  16:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. If it it's OK to do so while I'm being considered as well.  Monk has some heavy hitters in his corner and the person who nominated him is one of the true gems of Wikipedia.  There can never be enough vandal slayers. - Lucky 6.9 22:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. --Mrfixter 00:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Regarding the opposition citing conflict with Sam Spade (1) lots of people have problems with Sam Spade and (2) adminship is not a free ticket to "get the upper hand in a conflict".  Incidentally, RfA is not a free ticket to engage in personal attacks.  Tomer TALK  03:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Neutralitytalk 06:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I see no evidence of disruption from FeloniousMonk. Only evidence of him being a fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I didn't know FM's work very well before looking into it here, but this is a good editor. Having been in conflict and shown how s/he handles it is one of my admin criteria, and FM's opportunities in that area have apparently been outstanding. AFAICS he has acquitted himself very well. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you show me? The last time I talked with him he wasn't very good at all. It'd be nice to see where and when he has shown improvement. Kim Bruning 14:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Good addition. - Tεx  τ  urε  18:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Was that a good addition? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. This is a horrible mess, but FeloniousMonk seems to come out of it well.  He looks as though he would be a good administrator — he has integrity. --Phronima 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Did disrupting the December 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections, insisting on "disendorsements" despite Jimbo's wishes... and later bragging about it... Did that show integrity? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * could you keep your campaigning to your own vote or the discussion page please? I'd rather avoid the inevitable escalation problem.--Tznkai 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You did the disrupting in that election, as I recall, SS. Btw, bravo for the civility you exhibited yesterday toward Tznkai. El_C 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Case in point--Tznkai 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Stirling Newberry 22:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support AStanhope - Yes!
 * 3) Support after careful considerartion of arguments from both sides. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - no reason to think that FM would abuse admin powers. Guettarda 01:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Homey 04:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. &mdash;Morven 04:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support, Finally! [[Image:Alexander_cuts_the_Gordian_Knot.jpg|thumb|200px|Somtimes you just need to [[Gordian Knot|cut the knot]].]] Ok. How many folks recall that I actually wanted to nominate FeloniousMonk, at one point in time. Show of hands! Eh? That's not many. Ok, well then. At one point in time, late last year, I wanted to nominate FeloniousMonk. For folks just tuning in, this might be hard to believe, but. Well, he'd just concluded a public informal mediation with Rednblu, with Hawstom acting as the mediator, and all 3 parties had conducted themselves admirably. So, I nominated Hawstom, that went well, and rednblu was #3 on my (random order) list, first let's try Felonious. And that's where I got kinda stuck. There was some kind of impedence mismatch, and I couldn't get through to him what I wanted to see as assurance that he'd do well. Strange experience that :-/ It actually ended up at the mediation commitee, fancy that. Now as it turns out, the mediation comittee has the extreme misfortune of not having counted Slimvirgin among their members. (S)he managed to solve the gordian knot in oh, I'll wager just under 5 minutes. Thanks ^^;; Right, well, so... why am I supporting? Well, FeloniousMonk typically did do well in negotiations before (just not with me, but that's covered now :-) ), and seems to be doing well elsewhere. And indeed he has amazing integrity and perseverence. :-) Maybe he could try for bureaucrat in a little while. Kim Bruning 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim you forgot to close your strike tag among other things, which some of vaporized some of the opposition votes... think its fixed now. BTW I'm COMPLETELY CONFUSED now by the switch given you were so against it in the first place. -- Ryan Norton T 10:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the strike tag, I was in a rush, had to pick someone up at the airfield, so didn't have much time to post. ^^;; As to leaving people in confusion, sorry, can't help it. :-P Did I mention Slimvirgin should be nominated for medcom? O:-) Kim Bruning 14:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. --Briangotts (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) David Gerard 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) With opposition like that ...
 * 3) Support Blank Verse  ∅  19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--CSTAR 00:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC). Wow, that's a pretty impressive list (in quality and quantity) above me.
 * 5) Support. Professional edits, has shown a willingness to compromise and (in general) an ability to remain cool in the face of provocation.  --Aquillion 01:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I took sometime to think about this: good editor, with good people supporting him. Func( t, c, e, ) 05:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, plenty of merits, all described above. Shem(talk) 07:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support a scholar and gentleman. IZAK 12:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Well. I always supported personally, just didn't want FM to be admined in the midst of entrenched opposition, cause that would've been ugly. It seems to have all gone away. --Tznkai 15:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Full support.—<font color=#000>Encephalon | <font color=#000>ζ  | <font color=#000>Σ  18:43:13, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Karl Meier 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. JFW | T@lk  19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support 172 | Talk 20:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support --Pgreenfinch 21:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Carbonite | Talk 02:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Responds well to the hailstorm of criticism from the peanut gallery. That would be a good quality in a admin. HKT talk 17:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Valuable editor, decent person, no doubt a good admin. Who didn't have conflicts? --Irpen 17:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Suuport. A level-headed and reasonable contributor. Mr. Know-It-All 23:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose . Disruptive, partisan, look at his talk page or history. Sam Spade 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)
 * Ouwie, You'd think someone would clear out all their attack pages *before* their RFA. This kinda stuff goes on RFC. ouw. ^^;; Kim Bruning 04:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my opposition in light of recent corrispondance. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * Oppose. At least until evidence of resolution of dispute with Sam Spade, SqueakBox 17:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC). Evidence of resolution is Sam's withdrawing opposition, SqueakBox 16:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The only resolution of a conflict with Sam Spade is the removal of Sam Spade from the Wikipedia populace. Adraeus 21:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only Felonious appears obsessed with Sam, SqueakBox 04:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, how about Slimvirgin and I take a look at that. Would that maybe help? Kim Bruning 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was very unhappy about the Rfc's. If Sam were up for adminship I would ask for a solid step towards peace from him; I would make such a step myself did I want adminship, and I am asking to see Felonious really try and put the incident behind him and try to make up with Sam. This, to me, is in FM's hands, and I hope were he to do such a thing that the opposition would crumble, SqueakBox 22:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --malathion talk 00:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. WAS 4.250 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Sorry, but 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!)
 * "controversy => no support" seems hardly sensible as an rfa criterion. I would hesitate to support a used who has never shown how s/he handles controversy. FM seems mostly to be hated by trolls, which is a good sign. However, I realize that users who have my respect oppose this nomination, so I suppose it's possible to disagree on this. peace, dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I find the opposition persuasive. Trödel| talk  11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Dmn / Դմն 18:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I don't mind conflict but it shouldn't be your main purpose in being here. Grace Note 03:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I haven't made an edit in 1 month+, but this is just too much. – ugen64 04:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Your conflict with SS needs some time to cool off before I can support your nomination. Rkevins82 05:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Conduct with SS seems to have pushed you over the edge TDC 19:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose.  Sorry, but there are problems that must be addressed.  I'd be happy to support if it comes up again in a couple months and these have been resolved.   ral  315  01:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong 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)?
 * 1) Strenuously oppose. You have got to be kidding me. This is the editor who told me that Wikipedia is here to record "the facts", not understanding or eliding that there is disagreement over "the facts" and that this disagreement is what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias. FeloniousMonk does not understand NPOV. He doesn't recognize the distinction between facts and values. He boasts on his userpage of "opposing irrationality, including organized religion." (Yes &mdash; I know the text is borrowed from User:Eloquence.) That opposition manifests itself in his edits. That is to say: FeloniousMonk is an anti-religous POV warrior. To grant FeloniousMonk adminship is for Wikipedia to take a step away from NPOV. Additionally, his repeated insistence on "justice" in the tiff with SS is troubling &mdash; should justice be understood as retribution? --goethean ॐ 16:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment FeloniousMonk just deleted the archives of his Userpage, thus making my above hyperlink at "justice" go red. Add "disingenuous" to my list of FM's qualities. --goethean ॐ 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. FM can't delete anything. It is debating whether to give him such powers that we are engaged in, SqueakBox 18:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi goethean. Squeak is right. You actually just witnessed the final resolution of my conflict with Sam Spade. As part of that, I asked SlimVirgin to delete a subpage from my userspace to prevent others from linking our past conflict to use against Sam in the future; it had nothing to do with your linking to it. With my conflict with Sam now firmly in the past, I hope that in the future your opinion of me will improve. FeloniousMonk 18:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your concern for Sam's welfare is touching, especially considering your earlier enthusiasm for disrupting Wikipedia in order to get your apology. --goethean ॐ 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Further discussion found here. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. (no number since anons are not accorded voting rights). FM's continuous disruption of Wikipedia to "prove his point" shows a lack of the maturity that I would expect an admin to have. withdrawn but not absent 01:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Argumentative. Conflictive.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  04:29, 12 August 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia. I'll give my support. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)
 * The problem is not "past conflict with Sam Spade". The problem is a lack of judgement as shown by his willingness to disrupt Wikipedia to get even with Sam (insults on the talk page of Human were a disruption for the purpose of being insulting, not "a request for an apology") for an childish E-mail Sam sent half a year ago and already half apologized for. He shouldn't be an admin any more than Sam. Disruptiveness is disqualifying. Play well with others for six months and try again, FM. WAS 4.250 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "half apologized"? What is half an apology? You either take complete responsibility for your actions or you don't. And the only "apology" I've seen from Sam is this, which qualifies as an attempt to slop paint on horse manure and hope it dries into an airtight seal. Whether you vote for or against FM receiving adminship, I'd ask folks to either show me a diff to a real apology or don't keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. FuelWagon 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been working with FM on Intelligent Design with a team of regular editors, all of which have strong ideas and stronger problems with eachother's ideas. If there is any article that proves the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy isn't a forlorn dream, that article proves it. FM should be very proud of his work there, I know I am. It strikes me in reading some of these votes that the specter of User:Sam Spade has done a lot of damage, not only to FM's chances and record, but to the philosiphies that govern the oppose voters especially. A number of them, and I won't bother naming names, they know who they are, like to talk about how adminship is "No Big Deal". If it was trully no big deal, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. No one doubts FM knows what a vandal looks like, no one thinks he is.
 * :I recently went on vacation and cleared my head, and this is what that clear head tells me now: FM is personally more than ready to be an admin. I have his personal assurance that he will recuse himself from conflict with Sam. That tells me he at the very least understands the importance of ethical conduct as an admin. Something that quite a few current admins have less than a complete grasp on. I understand though, that the cause of FM becoming an admin, will have the effect of a bloody wikiwar. Just look at this voting page for the opening shots, including from normally harmonious and WP:AGFing admins. Come back in a month or two FM. The community isn't quite ready for this yet.--Tznkai 15:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no opinion on FM in general. I hope that people won't let the sam spade mess affect their vote.  From what I've seen, I don't think FM acted wrongly. Dave (talk) 00:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  I have no faith that this editor would not misuse admin privileges for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in a conflict.  Kelly Martin 05:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Objection withdrawn after consultation with Kim Bruning. Kelly Martin 15:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SqueakBox 16:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support . Better late than never. --Scimitar parley 15:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to neutral after reading the Human archive posted above. Still an excellent contributer, but I'm now uncomfortable supporting. --Scimitar parley 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Good contributor but still generates some controversy now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments section moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

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.

Comments section moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk