Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maunus


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Maunus
Final (73/6/4); ended 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am very glad to have the chance to nominate Maunus for the admin tools. Maunus has been an invaluable and reliable content contributor here for over 4 years now, with two FAs to his credit (Mayan languages and Nahuatl) and major expansions and improvements to many many others. In addition to his area of professional expertise in linguistics and Mesoamerican cultural histories, his substantive contributions are spread across a diverse array of other topics, from Greenlandic politics to the sociology of religion. He has uploaded a number of very useful original photos of otherwise hard-to-get objects and localities, and contributed to other language wikis as well, incl. translations of articles from one to the other. Maunus is no stranger to project– and policy–space contributions either. A review of his contribs will reveal numerous sensible and thoughtful comments to various XfDs, FARs, GARs, wikiprojects, policy & guideline discussions, &c. He knows how to foster a collegial atmosphere, maintain civility in disputes, uphold neutrality, respect the opinions of others and when to clarify or correct himself (couple recent examples:, , , .) In short, over almost 12k of edits thus far Maunus has exhibited all the behaviours one might wish for in an admin&mdash;helpfulness, common sense, civility, maturity, depth of knowledge, self-reflection, ability to express himself articulately, thoughtfulness, rationality. In controversial topics and conflict scenarios Maunus has shown he is able to keep a cool head, contribute positively and retain the focus on the end goal of improving wikipedia content. Maunus gets the idea and intent of wikipedia, his actions demonstrate his commitment to its aims and support of the community ideals. He is motivated and ready to add the sysop string to his bow and thereby extend his contributions to WP, I have no doubts the tools will be in safe hands and used wisely to beneficial effect. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thankfully accept. A few points I wish to state in advance: If you look at my edit history some of you may note that my editing patterns are somewhat inconsistent, with months of few contributions and sudden bouts of frenetic activity. This is a function of my occupation which at times forces me to spend months at a time at remote locations with scarce internet access. (I am a fieldworking linguist). I have previously been reluctant to become an administrator, I saw myself primarily as a content editor with no need for the tools. But recently, my involvement with dispute resolution and the AfD process has proved gratifying, and I intend to spend more time on that in the future (while still working on content improvement and addition). I would appreciate if questions about policy could make it clear whether they are asking about my understanding of current policy or for my opinion of how I would like it to be.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:39, 12 August 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The reason I have decided that the administrator's toolbox will be useful for me lies primarily in two areas in which I am already working: Dispute resolution/mediation as an uninvolved admin, and Articles For Deletion. Although dispute resolution can be done without administrative tools they are useful in order to be able to protect pages plagued by editwars so that dialogue between the warring parties can be begun. And then to include edits to protected pages as the consensus forms on the talk page. And although I hope I will not have to use them, the ability to block or topic ban disruptive editors, or at least threaten to do it, can be handy when trying to make groups of angry mastodons cool down and cooperate. The usefulness of the tools in deletion matters are obvious. Other areas that I will be contributing to as I grow into the role will be editwarring and 3RR violations, and speedy deletions.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am proud of the fact that when I arrived at Wikipedia 4 years ago, the coverage of Mesoamerican languages was nonexistent, and that in the meantime Wikipedia has now come to have articles (although quite a few stubs) on all of Mesoamerican languages, and have the best coverage on the entire internet of several of them. I don't think for example that the internet has a better introductory material to either Nahuatl, general Mayan languages, the Oto-Manguean or Mixe-Zoquean language families or the Otomi language than the current wikipedia articles. I am also happy with my recent involvement as a neutral editor in content disputes. I arrived at the talkpage of Jehovah's Witnesses in june, with the article protected after an editwar and two camps of editors in a deadlock over how to word the lead. Through my mediation and the editors' good will we managed to write a new compromise lead with input from both camps.


 * 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 have been in many edit conflicts, since becoming a wikipedian it has been of great personal interest to me that articles reflect the prevailing academic views of their topics and that fringe views be exposed as such. This has taken me into such editing swamps as Olmec alternative origin speculations, Afrocentrism, Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories, Maltese language, Out of India theory, and others. In my first years of editing I didn't handle it very well. I was quick to become emotionally involved, quick to reverting and quick to be less than civil. As I grew more experienced I realised that it is not worth it to step in to an editing conflict with all my emotions engaged. The more I detach myself emotionally from the topic the better the results. A few months ago I was reverting some controversial edits to articles about Greenlandic politics, I had been sure to form a consensus on the talk page against them, but a POV editor was ignoring it. I reverted three times and when he reverted again I took it to ANI. I was surprised that the outcome was that we were both warned for editwarring. Trying to understand this I realised that, yes, I had effectively been editwarring and getting my hands just as dirty as my opponent. And I realised that it had not been necessary for me to do this - the non-consensus edits would have been removed eventually anyway. What had made me editwar was a feeling that I was personally responsible for wikipedia providing the best and most neutral information, but I realised that I am not personally responsible, the community is. And I realised that my peace of mind and reputation for not being an editwarrior is more important than trying to defend wikipedia's integrity as lone errant knight. Especially because I am not a lone knight, I am part of a community of good, reponsible editors who are always interested in defending wikipedia's integrity with me. After discussing the topic with acquaintances, I decided to bind myself to the 1 revert rule, which I have been trying to follow since then. This has resulted in much less stressful editing for my part.


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 4. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content?  Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources?  Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
 * A: I am not among those editors who have the most restrictive views of what is includeable in an encyclopedia. I don't think that I have encountered a topic that I found to be non-notable even though it had been covered in multiple reliable sources - maybe some day I will. However, I may be a little more restrictive about what constitutes a reliable source than some editors - I strongly prefer peer reviewed academic works to other less "scholarly sources" like blogs, websites, news media etc. This does constitute a slight bias against those kinds of topics that are only documented in these kinds of sources. It is a bias I recognize and that I will actively try to work against. I may also be slightly biased, towards linguistics related topics, and I tend to think that for example natural human languages are notable even if they have received very little academic coverage. This is, as I admit a bias and I can always be swayed from it by sound arguments by other editors. My interest in the Systemic Bias also sometimes lead me to be more lenient towards topics from parts of the world that does not have the same kind of presence in academia or on the internet as similar Western topics. I remember for example voting keep on an article about a musician who was verifiably very famous in Nigeria, but had no significant coverage in western media or academic sources. However in all cases I find it a virtue to be open to arguments from other editors and to try to see past my own biases.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional Question from Balloonman
 * 5. One of the few things that I've been looking at in detail lately has been a users CSD work as I feel this is an area where the most harm can be done by a user as adequate controls do not exist over that area. (Sheesh, can you tell I'm an auditor!) Normally, I would have looked at your deletion history, and moved on as you have zero experience in that area.  I would have looked at your contributions there and said, he isn't going to be involved in CSD, thus, there is nothing to look at.  BUT your answer to question 1 explicitly states that working in CSD is an area of interest.  How can you assure me that you will be among the best, not the worst CSD'ers when that is an area where you have no history?
 * A: I am not going to plunge headfirst into CSD. It is an area in which I imagine myself working, given time. I expect that I will be watching for a good while, trying to make sure I understand both policies and their practical application before I go on any "deletion spree". Generally I think I will be fairly lenient towards articles that are not obvious deletion candidates, and I would probably prefer "salvaging" an article tagged for deletion by including better material and/or sources if I can. I cannot assure you that I will be among the best CSD'ers, but I will be among the most cautious and the most open to critique and friendly suggestions.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional question from 79.124.159.238 (talk)
 * 6. Hello, Maunus. How do you think, if one person (indefblocked for vandalism) did his last vandal edits three weeks ago and was being a very harmful vandal during e.g. 6 months, can this person be unblocked, maybe under some sysop's mentorship? Let us suppose, he apologised and there are one admin who's ready to be the mentor and help him. Also it's known that this user can be a useful contributor but has very instable psychic setup. Thanks, 79.124.159.238 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * A: You do not specify whether you are asking for my opinion or my understanding of policy, so I will start by stating what policy says about this and then supply my own opinion. According to policy an indef-blocked user can be unblocked by an administrator if the blocked user files an unblock request and an admin finds it to be sufficiently well reasoned to grant it, and while it doesnt constitute a Wheel-war (To avoid that usually a block review involving the blocking admin and a number of uninvolved admins would decide on whether to unblock or not). The user can also file an appeal to arbcom to have his block reversed. So in short it is possible that an indef blocked user may be unblocked (for example under mentorship), given the right circumstances and arguments. However, in a case where the user is a known longtime vandal with apparent psychological problems I think that admins would quite certainly expect very tangible evidence that the user had improved and they would want to be absolutely sure that letting him edit again would result in a net positive to the project - that is that the prospect of his future contributions will outweigh both past and present disruption. Personally, I would not unblock this user, especially not after only three weeks which seems like far to little time for any substantial change to have happened. The only arguments that could possibly sway that opinion would be if the blocking admin and the admin offering to mentor the user both agreed that unblocking would be a good idea. Otherwise, the risk to the project of unblocking a known vandal with personal issues would be to great.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 15th of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?
 * Optional question from Uncle G
 * Q: Articles for deletion/Trifectant
 * A:I would relist to generate more discussion. The page looks like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability - but I would never allow a deletion closure to be based on a consensus of one. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Q: Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination)
 * A: I have not been able to see the actual article since I am at a public terminal right now and it looks inappropriate for public browsing. I will judge purely based on the discussion. I would close as keep and encourage a merge or complete cleanup and possibly a move to a less OR-encouraging title. My reasons for this is that bad quality is not in itself an argument to delete. If an article can be cleaned up the principle of preservation of information suggests that this is the best soultion. In this case the nominator even says that the nomination can be withdrawn if anyone is willing to clean it up. Several editors suggest that a clean up is the right way to go about it, some have even suggested  they have access to better sources. I would hope/assume that some of them would be willing to take action on those words and close as keep and cleanup. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the current version has no pictures. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was too chicken to even click.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Q: Articles for deletion/Lebanese language
 * A: I would relist. There are simply not enough comments to constitute a consensus. Hopefully more comments from Wikiproject Libanon affiliated users would appear after a subsequent listing period. That being said if I were not acting like an admin, but as a user I would vote to redirect since the arguments given for merging are solid. The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic. I would not close a discussion in which I had voted myself. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Request for clarification from Dekimasu
 * Q: In your response above to UncleG's question about Articles for deletion/Trifectant, you state that you "would never allow a deletion closure to be based on a consensus of one." In your opinion, how does a deletion discussion that hasn't attracted any comments differ from an expired proposed deletion candidate?
 * A:Well, while the result is much the same there is the basic difference that when an editor proposes a candidate for deletion with the prod template she does so because she believes that the article "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". When an editor proposes an article for deletion via AfD I would assume he does so because there is a shadow of doubt about whether the article is an obvious and uncontroversial deletion candidate and she wants the community's input. I do see editors prodding articles that are not obvious or uncontroversial deletion candidates, but as an admin I would not delete those if I had the slightest doubt, instead listing them for AfD.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 10. An article is sent to AfD at 8am UTC on September 1st. Assuming it is not a WP:SNOWBALL or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?
 * A. I would not close before the morning of september 8th.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 11a. Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources.  There are over 100 GNews hits for this company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example, The Guardian New York Times The Washington Post and many more."  How would you proceed?
 * A. I would take unce G's advice and check those sources really thoroughly before weighing in with an argued vote for or against deletion depending on my impression of notability as established in the provided sources. If we assume I was forced to close by invisible aliens I would relist.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 11b. Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof.  How would you proceed?
 * A. I would investigate the alleged claim of copyright violation first, since if true this would be the one decisive argument. If the editor who alleged copyvio does not provide proof upon request and I am unable to verify it myself I would close as keep and encourage a cleanup to establish notability.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional queston from 91.145.227.199 (talk)
 * 12. Imagine the following situation. One person was working in a project A for a long time. Suddenly he lost his temper (by several personal reasons) and made disruptive edits in projects B and C, under his real account. After this a steward lock this user's global account as "cross-wiki vandal". Then, he began expanding massive vandalism in project A. One year later, this user applies to ArbCom of the project A to unblock him. Unblocking in this case doesn't mean unblocking the main account, which would be still locked globally, but allowing this user to create a new account and report to admins and ArbCom about it. There are may be several restrictions for this user and/or the mentorship. ArbCom of project A supports the unblocking, but B and C projects' sysops are oppose. What would you do if you were A 's arbitrator or even sysop (your thought) ? Thanks, 91.145.227.199 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A.Hmm, I am not running for arbitrator so the question is puely hypothetical. I think I don't really understand the question - if ArbCom had already decided to unblock and I were a member of Arbcom then I don't see what I would be supposed to do?·Maunus· ƛ · 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 13. Under what circumstance should a person notable for only one thing have their article deleted and under what circumstance should it be kept? That is under what circumstance would an AfD split between "keep - subject passes WP:N" and "delete - subject fails WP:BLP1E" type votes end in keep/delete?  How would you go about deciding?
 * A:It is a tough question because the weighing of BLP1E is largely subjective, but basically it comes down to an evaluation of the quantity and quality of the sources. I would value very highly commentary from non news related sources such as academic papers or books. The BLP1E policy suggests that quantity of coverage is more important than quality, I think however that coverage in media that are not news related (read: academic sources), even if scarce would go further towards determining notability than many news articles. In the actual situation I would close based on the consensus - if the votes were split about equally and both keep and delete votes were based on a subjective judgement of notavility I would close as no consensus.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 13a. - You are right, it is tough to call without specifics. As such, how would you close this actual AfD (linked to last revision before close.)  Please explain your thought process carefully as I am much more interested in learning how you think than wha you'd do in this specific case.
 * A: I don't think I would have merged, but opted for delete. In my opinion the BLP1E issue is crucial - the main argument is whether he is notable as a person or as a participant in an event. In this case he was not the sole responsible person but rather acted as part of a collective, this means that a claim for individual notability gets even weaker - it also doesn't seem fair to exhibit him and not the others, and I would judge that singling him out among the other perpetrators would be in conflict with BLP. My reason not to encourage a full merge would be looking at it from an article writing point of view: we encourage article writers to stay on topic, and if too fleshy subtopics emerge they should be spun out into their own articles. In this case the merger inserts a large amount of information about a person, his trial and biography into an article about the event that he participated in - the article wouldn't be able to pass a GA review after the merger even if it could before - it simply doesn't stay on topic. the way I see it the article on the Mahmudiyah killings became worse because of the merger. My preferred outcome of this would be the creation of a new spinoff article from Mahmudiyah killings for example named Mahmudiyah killings trial with bio's of all the perpetrators and a description of the trial. As an admin however I would have to close as delete but encourage the creation of a standalone article about the trial. Gee these questions are tough!·Maunus· ƛ · 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: They are supposed to be hard. :) Being capable of analyzing difficult judgment calls is the number one trait I look for in an admin. Thoughtful answers go a lot further toward winning my support than anything else does.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 14. How would you evaluate AfDs where the discussion is split between people saying "delete - fails ATH" and "keep - meets GNG" type arguments?
 * A:I see GNG as more restrictive than ATH - since someone can be a professional Athlete of the highest level and not be verifiable from reliable sources. On the other hand if a person is notable according to GNG then ATH is largely irrelevant, because then presumably the person is notable for something other than his athletic credentials. In short I would keep if the åperson met the general uncontroversially met the general notability criteria. Lets take Andy Kaufmann as an example: even though he did wrestle, his wrestling career obviously doesn't satisfy the ATH criteria - he is however very notable for other accomplishments and easily meet the GNG. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 14a. What is the argument in 14 was focused around what consistutes "significant coverage" as it relates to athletes? What types of coverage would give more weight the GNG side and what types of coverage would largely be discounted?
 * A: Generally I will say that I probably would never close sports related articles since I have next to no knowledge about sports - i would be afraid to accidentally delete a world champion of something. At leats I would never close them if I were in doubt about how the consensus should be judged - i would wait for another admin with better sports knowledge to come along an close it. In this case I suspect that would be the case since I really don't know what kind of coverage is most authoritative for athletes. I would probably sway towards keep if there were biographies piublished about him, or if his career had been the object of academic studies. But I am sure that there are other kinds of reliable sources in the sports world the reliability of wich I would not know how to assess. I would recuse from closing.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Maunus:
 * Edit summary usage for Maunus can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. → javért stargaze 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * What's going on with this support anyways? Was it supposed to automatically appear upon transclusion but failed?  Until It Sleeps  alternate   15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. :) → javért chat 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It successfully appeared in the transclusion, but not on this page itself. Do note that I nowikied it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, as nominator.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Although we've never interacted much, I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia and I've always been impressed with Maunus' research and dedication to getting things right. Maunus will make a great administrator. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) That crappy template didn't work, so I'm #3 behind Soap. Anyhow. Crank it up to 11 Support. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support - He has shown himself to be fair and judicious in his examinations of both articles and editor conflicts. He would be a great asset to the overall project.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; I've never heard of you to be honest, but given your long history, I expect that's a good thing. Nothing concerning as far as I can see. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I do not see anything that concerns me. I have confidence in an editor that is as established as you are. I had a bunch more written, however I read it over and it seems like I was babbling much like I am now...  SparksBoy (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Looks fine.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Stephen 04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, you seem great at dealing with disputes. I'd encourage you to use edit summaries more; it seems like you don't use them for talk pages as much but they can be useful there too (they help one find things in page histories). Rigadoun (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Has been around since July 2005 and this is first RFA and user track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Piling on per AdjustShift's oppose, see my comment there. I see no problems, and I see a particular clear understanding of policy. --Pgallert (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Nothing of great concern, seems to be Ok. Pmlineditor    Talk  10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. It's a real shame when editors retire into administration, but you can always return. NVO (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per Juliancolton. Never heard of you either, but you seem like a fine candidate.  iMatthew  talk   at 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Julian sums it up best: I have never heard of you but your contributions do not show anything that would want to make me oppose or go neutral. AdjustShift's oppose is a cause for some minor reflection though but nothing suggests that Maunus is unable to learn from such things. Regards  So Why  13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - trustworthy editor. Regarding the first oppose, Maunus's conduct in this discussion seems ok, and I'm not going to oppose a candidate for a single exasperated comment. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes. Sensible, mature, level-headed.  No problems here.  That you are able to remain sensible and level-headed after dealing with contentious areas is an even stronger reason to support; we need more administrators like this. Antandrus  (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Trustworthy, meets my criteria. Also, per Keepscases. → javért chat 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Very good communication skills. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support all the way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Level-headed editor. Also per Keepscases' oppose over a userbox...  Until It Sleeps  alternate   15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Looks fine to me.  hmwith t   18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Manus is an asset to Wikipedia with a demonstrated record. In my opinion the first oppose is more wiki-drama than anything else Likeminas (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - I'm not thrilled with the userbox mentioned below, but he removed it, so that shows a willingness to respond appropriately to criticism. I think Maunus brings a lot to the table and his areas of expertise are certainly most impressive. --B (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Evaluating solely on administrator-qualification criteria yields no significant reason to withhold support. -- Matheuler 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - while I sometimes find him brusk and offensive, I think he's qualified to be an admin. Rsheptak (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - Agree that his language in expressing opinions is sometimes a bit harsher than would be ideal but we can't all be saints.  He'll make a fine admin.  We need admins who understand what good, scholarly writing is so that Wikipedia can be respected as a quality project, not something put together by monkeys banging away on a typewriter.  Maunus is one of those who can help us get there.  --Richard (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Richard took the words out of my mouth: we can't all be saints - though I think that sounds less partisan coming from Richard! :) Seriously, I have no problems with Maunus becoming an admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support A superb editor with a wide range of experience who seems level-headed and courteous. --  At am a chat 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Clue check turns up positive.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Erik9 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Fully qualified candidate. The incidents raised by the opposers strike me as relatively minor, but as an administrator Maunus may want to work on smoothing his occasionally sharper edges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Support, he's not already one? Reading through the candidate's contributions to various WT: pages has convinced me that not only does he understand policy, he's able to think through its implications in a very refined way.  This is important. -- Deville (Talk) 04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support The answers seems a little bold for me, but the candidate seems honest, straightforward and collegial. I think they will make a good admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support I've been hoping that Maunus would be nominated - sure, he has some rough edges, but so do most of us at timesm and Maunus clearly understands both editing and policy and as Deville says above can think things through. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support a reeasonable editor who is open to discussion and temperate behavior. His experience and contributions convince. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support After deliberations, support arguments outweigh opposes. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support find opposes unconvincing, default to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support As Wehwalt notes above, I have not seen any compelling reasons to oppose what seems like a valuable and qualified candidate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support A competent editor. Would use the tools wisely. Alan16 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support I don't see that the opposes are wholly unmeritorious, and I can't say that I regard this as so clear a case as apparently do many in this number. On the whole, though, the candidate, with whom I have had a few passive encounters, each of which was positive, seems to possess sound judgment, a deliberative and collegial temperament, a fine demeanor, and a fair conversance with policy, and so I can conclude with a degree of confidence sufficient to merit support that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive.   Joe (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Support, per Jahiegel, and thank you to Uncle G for his excellent questions, which swayed me in the candidate's favour from a previously wavering position.— S Marshall Talk /Cont  09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per Schmidt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Yes_check.svg  Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Maunus. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Impressive. Once you obtain the bit, you could be an inner voice among the admin group, to speak out and to try to correct when obviously egregious things occur.--Caspian blue 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Keepscases (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) I particularly like the straightforward reply to Q3. The oppose votes either do not hold water or are not something I'm concerned about. (The editor who alleged the candidate to be a "constant source of drama and disputes" did not meet my request to provide diffs for the allegation. The "administrative arrogance" accusations AdjustShift brought up were certainly not a sign of being calm, but they seem to be an exception. Moreover, it is a good combination if an administrator is aware of administrative arrogance, provided  is willing to apply that critical view to . In my impression, he seems to be sufficiently self-critical.) &mdash; Sebastian 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Ottava, you gave him only an hour and a half to respond to your request. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am willing to reconsider my vote if I see diffs that back up that claim. You seem to have similar concerns; would you have any diffs? It may be most appropriate if you add them to your statement below, but please ping me on my talk page, as I might overlook it. &mdash; Sebastian 21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My opening post points out to a recent example where he is causing problems in a page that he is using as an example of his better work. Sebastian later requiring diffs is absurd and shows that he has not actually looked into the matter, let alone my opening post. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to your statement which I answered on 01:55, 13 August 2009? I agreed with you that your example raised a red flag, but concluded that the candidate's choice of words had created no problem. You did not show any evidence for a problem then, nor have I seen evidence for the other "problems" you are seeing now. Since my reply obviously showed that I read your post, it appears that you are just trolling, and I may take the liberty of not replying to such unsourced statements anymore. &mdash; Sebastian 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Sebastian, diffs aren't really appropriate here. Nothing really sticks out as amazingly out of line, but Maunus's behavior on the noticeboards in general is what concerns me. You can take a look at his contributions and see his comments. It should be noted, however, that this is only part of the reason I opposed. I would not oppose based on his noticeboard activity alone. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously believe you can convince people to change their vote without giving them any concrete information? &mdash; Sebastian 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As participants in the RfA process, it's their duty to thoroughly review a candidate before !voting. I assume everyone has done that, and most obviously have a different opinion on this candidate's tone in discussion and noticeboard contributions than I do. It's hard to give "concrete" evidence for that type of behavior anyway. Everything I could give concrete evidence for, such as the candidate's AfD participation, I did. There's really not anything more I can say on the matter. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Do you seriously believe you can convince people to change their vote" People who weigh in here are not responsible for changing other people's minds nor do they have to try to do such. If you disagree with someone's level of reasoning, they do not have to convince you that they are right. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Good contributions. Generally good judgement.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Checks out just fine: good answers, hard working, dedicated and intelligent. I consider his arguably more 'direct' tone to be a bonus, which makes his humble but futile attempt to both forestall the inevitable Keepscases userbox shitstorm and to appease the actual Keepscases userbox shitstorm all the more admirable. And a bitter indictment of the RfA system. And the last straw from that user within it. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as user meets User:A_Nobody/RfA by being a professional writer with a post-graduate degree, has created, expanded, and translated multiple articles (these sorts of edits really show that Maunus is indeed here to build an encyclopedia), has contributed to numerous DYKs and a couple FA articles, has received barnstars in recognition of his edits, has never been blocked, and I do not recall us having any memorable negative interactions. Really, all sorts of good things and I am persuaded further by seeing the first couple of editors to have initially opposed below to have changed stances as well.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I can't see any glaring problems to be fair and I cant see any misuse of the tools.  Athe  Weatherman   22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per thoughtful responses to some very tough questions. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indenting duplicate vote (See current #38 above) NW ( Talk ) 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Maunus has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing, and a high degree of CLUE through thoughtful answers to the questions posed.  The temperament based opposes would potentially be of concern, but thus far no one has provided any diffs that I find truly troubling. My only concern would be the minimal CSD experience, but I have no reason to doubt Maunus' pledge to take it slow in that area.  Just remember that A7 doesn't apply to all subjects, that a article only has to make a weak claim of importance (not notability) to avoid A7 deletion, and that G1/G3 aren't a license to delete junk that doesn't fit into another speedy category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Why not? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Regrettable Support &mdash; It saddens me to see content writers move on to administratorship, since that means they will no longer be writing articles. Alas, I cannot oppose a perfectly eligible candidate. &mdash;harej (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't despair - I will still be writing articles just as I always have - if I become admin that will just be a an extra passtime. I am here to write articles.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support All round well experienced user, seems sensible and appropriate for the job. Ijanderson (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Ijanderson. Airplaneman  talk 16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good content writer; supportive, helpful, and collegial to newer editors -- all good qualities. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, with some reservations. Take heed of the opposes and neutrals.  I don't fault you for responding as you did to Uncle G's question, but the followup should be instructive. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Experienced, thoughtful, civil, intelligent. A valuable editor from what I've seen of his contributions. Should make a fine administrator. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I'm not personally familiar with this editor, but upon a good deal browsing and reading through his question answers (which I liked, they show good WP:CLUE and generally wise choice-making), I'm convinced to support. It looks like he's worked in some areas/disputes prone to contention, as evidenced by stuff in the oppose section, such as AdjustShift's comments. Yes, Maunus has made some slightly harsh remarks under certain circumstances. Overall, however, he seems very willing to discuss differences and talk out issues in a calm and reasonable manner, which is a thumbs-up to me. Jamie  S93  be kind to newcomers 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportHas nothing I would directly oppose to. Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) As for myself, I have commited my editing to a very big accomplishment and I feel I can be part of the Wikimedia Foundation community if I act in a very good way and welcome users and editors of Wikipedia, and help users with creating accounts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naoy5 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Seems level headed and willing to learn. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, but there is another difference between an expired prod and an article deleted through AfD; one can be recreated or restored immediately by anyone who wants to, and the other is eligible for speedy deletion if recreated in the same form. Dekimasu よ! 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Shii (tock) 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, looks well rounded in the way of the wiki. Should make a fine admin. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support. Not too fond of the closures where the result was no consensus or delete, but overall, I don't see any major problems. —  Σ  xplicit  23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems fine. <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I see no problems. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I see no problems. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 *  Strong oppose  - Maunus is a good editor who has positively contributed to the project, but I don't think he has the right temperament to be an admin. After NYScholar was community banned, Maunus was involved in a discussion at WT:BAN. This was about one month ago. During the debate, he showed poor understanding of the banning policy, but despite that he continued his arguments. After further agruments, he accused William M. Connolley, Sarah, and me of "administrative arrogance". See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Maunus is quick to assume bad faith when it comes to admins, and I don't think he will be a net positive as an admin. He is a pretty good editor, but I don't think adminship is right for him. AdjustShift (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, if he is quick to assume bad faith among admins (I don't see it), don't you think that being an admin will give him a new perspective? maunus engages many, many controversial topics and is usually thanked for his calm demeanor. See his talk page. Really. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, he stepped on your toes, and his comments were a bit, how do I put it, strong. But honestly, if I were reverted in that manner, a day after I explicitly asked for your opinion on the talk page, I would be irritated as well. I cannot see his alleged poor understanding of the banning policy, either. You are of course entitled to your opinion but I will support based on it. --Pgallert (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pgallert, please read this link. Maunus wrote "Well firstly there is the difference that a blocked user must have been given blockwarnings prior to the block - and so has had a chance to realize the gravity of his actions before the consequence was given." We give block warnings prior to the block to vandals; we don't give block warnings to an editor who is about to be banned. You call this a good understanding of the banning policy? Please read this comment of SheffieldSteel and this comment of Will Beback. AdjustShift (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not going to comment on simple oppose votes, but since this is based on a recent dispute between me and the opposing editor I think for fairness sake I will present the other side. I started a discussion on the banning policy based on what I saw as an inherent problem with the wording of that policy. The reason I became aware of that wording was the NYScholar ban which had been executed by AdjustShift. In mid discussion enters AdjustShift - he erases comments that he thinks are discussing and not improvements of the banning policy the ban of NYScholar (we are using that ban as an example of the problem with the wording). When I explain that I don't believe his removal of my comments was justified he replies "it was justified" and "as an admin I know when to be offensive and when to be defensive" and gives no further explanation. He then went on to close the ongoing discussion at WP:Banning without as much as a warning. During this he perpetually uses the fact that I have expressed a doubt about the precision of a particular wording to try to tell other editors that they shouldn't listen to me "because I have a pooor understanding of the Banning policy" when in fact several editors are agreeing that there is a weak wording. When asked to clarify his understanding of the banning policy he suggests that he understands it because he is an admin and has closed many banning cases, but that I as a non-admin can not expect to understand it fully. He did not at any point try to explain what it was that I don't understand or why he disagreed with my arguments. This is what prompted my claims of administratve arrogance. There is no policy here on wikipedia that you need to be an administrator to understand. Finally since the discussion was going nowhere and  could see that many editors did not agree with what i perceived to be a problem I simply left the discussion.  This was all a very frustrating experience, but if anything I think it shows that I can keep civil in heated disputes, that I am interested in arriving at the correct interpretations of wp policies, that I believe that admins should always be able to give a rationale for their administrative actions, and that I can walk away when the consensus is against my ideas.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, when did I said that I understands it (the banning policy) because I'm an admin? Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said that sort of thing. Please bring at least a diff as evidence. WP Community should analyze Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went on to "close the discussion" because the discussion in that section became more about the banning of NYScholar rather than how to ameliorate the Banning policy page. Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is for discussing how to ameliorate the Wikipedia:Banning policy page; it is not a place to discuss about whether a ban imposed on someone is right or wrong. AdjustShift (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Difs provided. I will now leave this issue alone. You are of course in your good right to oppose on any grounds you wish.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will also leave this issue now. I don't think you should be granted adminship now, but let's see what the community thinks. Good luck with your RFA. AdjustShift (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One last comment: Here I never suggested that as a non-admin Maunus can not be expected to understand the banning policy fully. I have analyzed all the banning cases listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users. I've also analyzed banning cases not listed on that list. I never saw Maunus' participation in any of the banning cases, so I thought his understanding may not be that strong. I've never written a single featured article yet, but Maunus has written two FAs. Maunus is more qualified to instruct someone on how to write a featured article better than me. In my case, I've participated in multiple banning cases, so I've a better understanding of the banning policy. I asked Maunus to study the history of some banned users. How is that an example of "administrative arrogance"? If I ask Maunus how to write a featured article, and he asks me to study the history of some featured articles, can I consider that to be arrogance? No. Here, admins=editors. He shouldn't have accused me of "administrative arrogance". AdjustShift (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AdjustShift has asked me specifically to respond to this comment to clarify. I'll go with your analogy: if you were in a discussion about FA's and expressed a doubt about some aspect of the FA criteria, lets say you suggested that FA-reviewers did not apply the FA criteria consistently because of a bad wording in the criteria. If I then told you that you just don't get the FA criteria and told other editors not to listen to you because you obviously had a poor understanding of what the FA criteria were about then I would be acting arrogantly. In my opinion the right thing to do in this case would be to explain to you why I did not consider your concern to be relevant by using arguments. In this way instead of just saying that you don't get it I would help you to understand my point of view better. I agree that I did not accomplish anything useful by calling your behaviour arrogant, and that I shouldn't have done so. But I felt that you were not even trying to respond to my concerns, but instead trying to wreck my general credibility to other editors by using Adhominem arguments, quoting me out of context and using condescending language. This behaviour exasperated me. I am going to do my best to not let such a situation repeat itself. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you told me that I just don't get the FA criteria and told other editors not to listen to me because I obviously had a poor understanding of what the FA criteria were about then you would not be acting arrogantly, according to me! I should have probably analyzed your comments more profoundly in July 2009. My perception towards you has changed since July 2009. We don't view the world through the same prism, but you seem to be an intelligent person who listens to other people. I've strike "strong" from my oppose. Good luck with your RFA! AdjustShift (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Switched to neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Confrontational userbox. Keepscases (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. Keepscases (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind mentioning which one? I can't see a single "confrontational" userbox on his page. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This might contain some clues, make of it what you will.--cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm fully aware of Keepscases's ridiculous standards, but I can't find anything that would offend even him. The boxes are about as offensive as "this user likes a glass of milk before bed". Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, didn't see this - fair does then. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit silly Keepscases'. How would you feel if you went to RFA in a while and people started opposing you because you're religious?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As he has stated before, Keepscases does not oppose people because of their religion. See Requests for comment/Keepscases. Responding to his unpopular opposes just creates more drama and disruption. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually I would side with Keepscases but get real, this was the least offensive of atheist boxes (compared to "keep your friends.." stuff). NVO (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you at all. The userbox creates an argument over religion where there should be none.  People who truly want to be left alone about their nonbeliefs shouldn't imply there's some confrontation and pretend it was religious folks who started it.  If there are indeed religious people on Wikipedia who, unprovoked, give atheists a hard time, all I have to say is evidence please. Keepscases (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say that I agree with keepscases on this one, which is why I removed it. I had originally included mostly because I found the wording humourous, not because of a strong atheist conviction. When keepscases mentioned offensive userboxes I firs didn't remember that I had it, but when I looked it over I realized that not everybody might find it as funny as I originally did. I understand that theists might find it offensive and that's why I removed it. Keepscases Oppose vote is justified - i did make a mistake when I chose to use it. ·Maunus· ƛ · 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response, and I will look over your contributions and reconsider my !vote. Keepscases (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You will look over his contributions now? After opposing? You should have checked them earlier. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Wikipedian community is willing to tolerate and even enable Keepscases' intolerance against self-identifying Atheist admins -- "none need apply" -- is so disheartening. And this is supposed to be a compendium of knowledge? Shame on us all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, shame on you for pretending this is about atheism. Keepscases (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that if the infobox had merely stated "I am an atheist" that keepscases would have not been offended by it - but it didn't it was worded in a way that could be interpreted as an sarcastic attack against theists. I do not believe in God¡, but I dont need to be smug about that. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to point out, at this juncture, that Keepscases supported me for my atheist userbox.— S Marshall <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not correct. Keepscases said "Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs." Ling.Nut (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Your contributions are commendable. However, there are some serious issues. The incident AdjustShift brought up concerns me. Also, I strongly dislike the drama-inciting tone and behavior exhibited on the noticeboards and the apparent need to do non-admin closures on AfDs that are not nearly unanimous keeps or even keeps at all. In addition, the level of research you put into the few AfD !votes you've made is concerning. You !voted on three AfDs in just six minutes just a few days ago. Disregarding all that, I would still like to see more experience in the areas in which you wish to work, especially dispute resolution. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I cannot trust this user, there is no real need for the tools, and some of his statements here and on other places make me concern about his ability to act neutrally or fairly. A recent example where his "diplomacy" is more inflammatory than diplomatic is here, on a page that he cited as one of his examples of his good conduct. Such derogatory comments are not neutral nor are they used by those trying to mediate or come to terms with others. These are partisan terms, and the user has a really bad habit of getting himself into many POV battles and acting as a partisan and not a mediator. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above raised a red flag for me; the wording "stubborn nitpicking" is indeed stronger than what is usually advisable to calm down emotions. In this case, however, it seems to have been appropriate: It urged people to see the bigger picture and agree with the compromise. That sentiment was shared by the majority in that discussion. In some cases, strong wording can serve a good purpose, when it wakes up people. I wouldn't advise it because it can easily backfire, but there was no problem in this instance as it did not escalate the conflict. I would not call this "partisan", unless we group all editors who are willing to compromise after a tiresome dispute into one party. That would be a party I would join, too! &mdash; Sebastian 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the first time I've ever heard someone describe an insult as appropriate or a solution that worked. From the result that I see, I disagree that it did work, or that his role in there was helpful. Most of the articles he is involved with from looking at his contribs are very controversial, and many of his positions are partisan views, not neutral views. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL &mdash; and I think that may be the first and only time I've ever typed that acronym on Wikipedia... If "stubborn nitpicking" is an insult, I should be reported to ANI most extremely immediately. As should... most of the biggest names.. in Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ling.Nut - when you are trying to serve as a mediator to come up with a neutral view, you don't use any negative descriptives when referring to parties. Such things prejudice you towards one part or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * for the record I was referring to both parties as stubborn in this case. Anyway I am not an appointed mediator in this case, or an uninvolved editor for that case. What I called my accomplishment was that I believe I served to get the parties out of a deadlock in midjune regarding the wording of the lead. Since then I have participated as a normal editor on the talk page.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point above is that at no time have I seen anything of your edits that could be considered "as a neutral editor" to use your own words. I oppose as much over you misrepresenting yourself there and as a constant source of drama and disputes. Looking at the pages, I feel that you are partially responsible in controversies continuing and not ending. Your mannerisms are further difficult to believe that you would make an effective admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you have diffs for "constant source of drama and disputes"? &mdash; Sebastian 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From my recent interaction with you, I find it laughable that you oppose someone over not using neutral language. Alan16 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is exactly what I am talking about. You are seeking the position of administrator while claiming that you want to work with sensitive situations. Then you berate people with concerns. That is 100% proof that you would only be a major harm to Wikipedia in the areas and more of a harm if you were given ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, are you maybe confusing the candidate with Alan16? I think what Alan wrote can be expressed better in the words of Thornton Wilder: "People who's et onions is no judge of who's et onions and who aint." &mdash; Sebastian 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only time I confused the two was the above. However, I confused the two because their language and mannerisms are the same and I didn't bother to look at the name. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Poor AFD closures. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, could you please provide some examples? While I am supporting now, I obviously take AfDs into account and want to be sure I am not missing something.  Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Articles for deletion/Wha Kyung Byun and Articles for deletion/White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors were closed as no-consensus, and Articles for deletion/Futuristic Leland and Articles for deletion/Hunglish as delete, in direct violation of WP:NAC. Non-admin closures should be restricted to unanimous or nearly unanimous keep debates. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those closures were clearly a mistake, I had misunderstood the right of non admins to close non-keep AfDs. I was made aware of my mistake by King of Hearts and took steps to remedy it. I encouraged Slrubenstein to undo those of my closures that were challenged and assumed full responsibility for the problems I cause. (only one closure was disputed) I also inserted a link to WP:NAC in the description of the deletion guidelines which had previously not mentioned any restrictions on non-admin closures. This mistake will not repeat it self (also if I do not receive the tools) - but I think that in relation to the RfA it might be appropriate to look at the rationales for my closures, instead of the misguided interpretation of NAC that I was working under.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the reply. I can see how those do not follow the guideline and will review the candidate's comment above.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose; some things regarding question 1 made me uncomfortable. "And although I hope I will not have to use them, the ability to block or topic ban disruptive editors, or at least threaten to do it..." seems a bit overly confrontational. Also, the candidate has no experience in CSD, yet wishes to work there. Still leaning between Oppose and Neutral though, and I'll watch the RfA closely for future developments. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that CSD concerns would have been satisfied by the statement, "I am not going to plunge headfirst into CSD. It is an area in which I imagine myself working, given time." It looks like he's not that eager to work on it and is hesitant to do so without experience. Your other concern seems valid, though it wasn't enough to sway me toward opposition. --  At am a chat 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Admins need to keep their cool when tempers get hot, and to refrain from personalizing disputes. I'm not seeing that here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind providing examples or diffs of this, I cant see any. Cheers. <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Athe Weatherman   22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose for cause with evidence Maunus (1) displayed serious lack of core policy knowledge and/or inability to obtain it; (2) demonstrated unsound judgment in refereeing a dispute; (3) wrote an un-admin-like statement of constructional disregard for WP:BRD consensus editing. Add to these, in my personal opinion, he handled criticism poorly, and displayed a part-time, little-noticed, arrogant aggression. That's an overall recipe for an admin who may too frequently make bad decisions and/or become abusive when he is challenged for any reason. An editor who apparently has not thoroughly read No personal attacks, and seemingly refuses to read it again when asked, or can't comprehend it, or somehow fails to act on his reading of it, is an unlikely candidate for adminship. Maunus' ability to handle a dispute was incautious and blundering. When he was challenged, he persisted in fallacious policy positions after he had been asked to read correct policy. Engaging in irrational escalation of commitment by an admin candidate, who should be on his best behavior, is unacceptable.  The locus of the dispute was here (seems to be ended).  Maunus charged in to help an ally of his content dispute, but then he casually blundered over the policy line into a PA-by-unevidenced accusation. Initially he didn't know what he had done wrong – which happens to many – but then he aggravated his lack of knowledge by repeatedly ignoring WP:NPA policy reference to his mistakes:  "• WP:NPA: 'Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks'""• WP:NPA: 'Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.'" Maunus made an accusation of "personal attacks", and foolishly entered an accusation into the edit summary, where he can't strike it if wrong, persisted the accusation, with WP:NPA unread or not comprehended or not acted on: "You also cannot back up personal attacks with evidence since that is irrelevant..." , even after that charge was declared as wrong with reference to WP:NPA: "accusation of PA is prohibited without evidence per WP:NPA" , followed by a more insistent request to read WP:NPA "WP:NPA says that evidenced statements are not considered PAs."  (because "describe an editor's actions" implicitly requires evidence)  ... "You can't casually throw around the words "personal attacks"." . Yet he persisted with a third accusation of violating the "letter of WP:NPA", plus a co-accusation of "WP:CIVIL"  , also proved wrong .  Note the failure of good judgment and loss of emotional control in his re-edit of Maunus 12:26, 16 August 2009 (original diff) to Maunus 12:30, 16 August 2009 (re-edit diff). In the first diff he mutes the previous overt PA accusations to "disparaging remark", though that's still covertly a PA accusation. Unfortunately, four minutes later he couldn't resist twisting the knife by persistently adding back in a third overt PA accusation: "clearly in conflict with both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL."  Both accusations referred to an evident statement of fact, in response to a calumny by a third party, as explained in considerable detail .  That Maunus seemed unfamiliar with Conflict of interest, and had a questionable understanding of it, casts further doubt on his readiness for adminship.  How many other policies has he not read well, or does not clearly understand? WP:CONSENSUS? Note his unqualified claim that "Major changes may be made to any article without discussion..." ,  which is consistent with his lack of regard for WP:BRD editing.   WP:BRD is not required by guide or policy, but it is widely regarded as a model editing practice that good editors, and especially admins, should emulate. I requested that Maunus observe it: "...will you honor a WP:BRD revert and discussion or not?"  , to which he replied "I am honoring the BRD cycle by discussing this with you." .  In response I wrote, "I see a "B" (bold), and a preamble to a "D" (discuss), but no "R" (revert). In short, you are constructionally refusing BRD editing cooperation." Maunus' "honoring" reply is notable for its glossy failure to accept editing cooperation in a BRD cycle, coupled with a disturbingly un-admin-like morph of the facts ("BRD cycle" with no actual revert), to lightly cover what he seems to know makes him look bad (constructionally refusing BRD).   Maunus has a different, more controlled self that he projects much of the time. I've seen that controlled, well-mannered self, but then I've known other editors who seemed outstanding as long as one didn't oppose them. A well-mannered self is civilized behavior, and good manners is sometimes a necessary polite fiction, but good manners isn't enough when a non-controlled self emerges under unexpected pressure. Admins face unexpected pressures frequently. As is often said, some people have the temperament to be editors, but not admins. My judgment of this editor is: not ready to be an admin.  Whatever, it looks like this nomination will sail through, so I'm serving notice of a personal dispute. Maunus is not to use his tools, or suggest his possible use of them in regard to any situation involving me.  I apologize for the page bloat of this oppose, but future victims of poor judgment, if any, deserve to know that there was a precursor to their plight. Hopefully, some other knowing admin would step in to help them. Milo 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needless to say that i have a different perspective about who doesn't understand policy here - as I have already explained to Milomedes. I arrived at Cult with suggestions about how to improve the page, I had never before interacted with user Pelle Smith whom Milomedes calls "my ally". In what amounted to a display of less than good faith Milomedes immediately inquired about whether I was a cult member, supposedly in the interest of COI. I answered him, but noted that my memberships were irrelevant and that COI doesn't allow anyone to use a persons affiliations to organizations to disqualify them from editing. WP:COI states: "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article." WP:NPA states that: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.". Milomedes disagreed, instead restating his misunderstod interpretation of policies.
 * Milomedes then made a clear uncivil personal attack on user Pelle Smith asserting that he was a newbie and didn't know what he was talking about. When I asked him to observe civility Milomedes turned the argument around and stated that since he had evidence that PelleSmith was a newbie (?) that was no personal attack but that I was making a personal attack by asking him to be civil without evidence that he was not (since he didn't accept that calling someone a Newbie is uncivil even though that is given as an example of incivility in WP:CIVIL).(Note that Melomides has been noted to have a nonstandard interpretation of NPA before by multiple editors: ) Milomedes also accuses me of "not honoring the BRD cycle": WP:BRD does nowhere state that an editor is supposed to revert himself if another editor disagrees with his edits - it is up to the editor who disagrees to revert. Why Milomedes has not reverted my edits in this case I don't understand, apparently he thinks that it will likely cause an editwar, although i don't know what would have given him that idea. I will of course not use any tools (if i get them) against Milomedes or anyone else with whom I am personally involved. I invite everyone who is watching this RfA to review my responses to Milomedes at talk:Cult - this is a case where i have absolutely nothing to hide. i also invite all of you to join the discussion of how to improve said article - it seems to me that Melomides has struggled there on his own for too long, and possibly has forgotten that we are all here to help him. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This RfA is about you, and what you did or might do. Where you and I interacted, the commentary is on-topic. The rest is just distractions from your unacceptable behavior. Milo 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True this RfA is about me. And as I said I stand by every word I have said in my iteraction with you. But I don't agree with your representation of my behaviour or your representation of what constitutes a misunderstanding of policy. That is why I provided my point of view and difs to show that I am not the only editor whose interpretation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV is in conflict with yours. That being said you are of course in your right to oppose on any grounds and my comment was merely to provide my perspective on our interaction. I invite anyone here who reviews my participation on talk:Cult and finds that I have misunderstood policies, or behaved in a way unbecoming of an administrator to change their stance to "oppose" - because honestly I am certain that I have done no such thing. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do try to focus. Above I laid out the two quotes from WP:NPA that you didn't read, refused to read, couldn't understand, or failed to follow. Please explain why. Milo 20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already explained everythign at Talk:Cult and here and I have nothing further to add.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Seems to be a good editor, but I'm concerned about the first strong oppose and could likely be swayed either way. One two three... 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This isn't really a "vote", more of a discussion contribution. But there's no section for that. As always, my 3 AFD discussions question was a complex test.  It doesn't reveal any such problems as alluded to by Stifle above (Any pointers to specific discussions of concern, Stifle?), but it does suggest a need for a pointer from experience.  Therefore I offer this advice:  Maunus, if you get administrator tools, as seems likely at this point, remember that you're still an editor as well.  Ignore what NVO implies above; it's not true.  &#9786;  As administrators we still have editor hats, and we still have all of the tools that editors have.  Sometimes the right response is to just be an editor.  Sometimes it's an ordinary editor tool that is the right tool for the job.  Your responses to Articles for deletion/Lebanese language and Articles for deletion/Trifectant indicate that you automatically view your r&ocirc;le as being the closing administrator.  (Note that I worded the question quite carefully.  The discussions weren't chosen completely at random, either.  &#9786;)  Whilst that's admirable enthusiasm for a new administrator, from your responses to the question it is clear that the right courses of action, that would have helped AFD and Wikipedia more, would have been for you to chime in as an ordinary editor and add your opinions to the discussions.  Timmeh  seems to have the same concern, that you are perhaps too willing to always wear an administrator hat.  You clearly have views on the articles in question ("like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability" and "The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic") and those views would actually help the next person to come along, and any future discussion closer, more than just a mere re-listing would have.  (You do, after all, claim some knowledge of the field in the case of one of those discussions.)  So here's a tip based upon experience:  Remember that we can often help AFD and other processes by just being ordinary editors.  We aren't forced always to be discussion closers and arbiters.  The administrator tools are not the only tools in our toolboxes; and it's sometimes a far more useful and productive contribution to a discussion to edit, to write, and to find, read, and evaluate sources, than to simply be a person wielding a rubber stamp.  You'll find that those are useful principles to remember outside of deletion discussions as well. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) *I agree whole heartedly and thank you for the advice. I do feel that I was slightly tricked by the question (although I admit your careful wording was wellchosen). But this being an RfA I suppose I expected you to be inquiring about how I would use the admin tools specifically. In both the case of Trifectant and Lebanese my immediate thought was to vote (which was also why I made sure to state that I wouldn't close a case in which I had voted). And actually my first thought on seeing the naked celebs was - I would never close this, this is too contentious. I am very thankful for your little test, I am sure that lesson will stay with me.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) **It's intended to be complex, with several facets, but not a trick. If it helps any with the further clarification requested above, note that there have been several discussions of potentially treating AFD discussions with no comments other than the nomination as expired uncontested Proposed Deletions, on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.  See the current page and its archives. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) *Examples now quoted above. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. The above discussion I had with Maunus indicates that he will not use the admin tools inappropriately, so there is no reason to oppose. AdjustShift (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. Stifle's closure and the other temperament issues are concerning. Will have to look more closely. Wizardman  01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.