Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk

Shock
I am personally very shocked that SV would make such a nomination. Would she mind elaborating on her reasoning, particularly in light of the objections? Sam Spade 21:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Sam (the user above, with the silly signature) has some sort of issue with FeloniousMonk, and frequently antagonises him/her. Exploding Boy 02:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That signature is not only idiotic but also displays incorrectly on various browsers. I've changed the signature to read simply "Sam Spade" for the purpose of enhancing cross-browser compatibility. Adraeus 03:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can tell there is some sort of conflict between the two from this page's project page. Its worth remebering that this is about Felonious. SqueakBox 02:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * When is Sam Spade not in a conflict with someone in Wikipedia? Adraeus 03:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Moved from comments section
Comments
 * I would be very interested to hear how the nominee feels about this message from Jimbo Wales, in particular his comments about the last arbitration election. --Michael Snow 04:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm flattered, but don't you think I should spend some time as an admin first? ;-) OK, Jimbo is the founder and in every real sense the owner of wikipedia; as such he is entitled to run wikipedia as he sees fit. We each serve and edit here by his leave. If he chooses to appoint arbcom members rather than have them elected by the community, it is an arrangement we must all accept. We are not required to agree with any or each of Jimbo's decrees, but we are required to abide by them. Jimbo has shown himself more than willing to listen to the community. If there are people here who have concerns about arbcom members being appointed, I'd encourage them to voice them to Jimbo. Personally, I can understand why an election is not being considered; the debate that ensued over the right of voters to leave disendorsements as well as endorsements was pointless, as was the attempt to delete the disendorsements. If an election that provides a free and open forum for the exchange of all views cannot be provided or accommodated by the community, then perhaps appointments are the better solution. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So in the future, you think that having Jimbo continue to manage the arbitration process this way is better than having the community arrange things on its own? --Michael Snow 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the ideal solution is still an election open to the entire community. It's widely recognized that a necessary component of a free and fair election is open and unrestricted public discussion of the various candidates worthiness to serve. I think the wikipedia community recognizes this; most other elections here do not limit the comments of those voting to only positive comments; RFA being a prime example. I agree that the discussions around candidates are often disruptive, such is the nature of elections, but I don't agree that the disruption's net effect to the community is perforce detrimental. I feel there are ways acceptable to the community to accommodate voters need to express their support or concern; as seen here for example. FeloniousMonk 03:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Despite having very few personal interactions with this user I feel that he would make a very good admin, however I am concerned that him and user:Sam Spade still have unresolved conflicts that being said I trust that Felonious Monk and Sam Spade are working towards a resolution to their dispute and that if given adminship such conflicts will not interfere with his ability to be a good admin. Jtkiefer  T - 05:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC) After reviewing the ongoing dispute between him and User:Sam Spade I'm going to withdraw my vote until this can all be figured out.  Jtkiefer  T - 03:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Document request -- before we confirm FM as an admin all backchannel communications between FM and Slimvirgin should be disclosed, so that a fully informed decision can be made and so that we really know where he stands on the issues, and why he wasn't willing to conduct wikipedia business in an open and transparent manner.--Silverback 19:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above document request. SlimVirgin has demonstrated a tendency to coordinate editing activities with allied persons through offsite back channels in the past. Creating yet another administrator with a habit of doing this is dangerous to wikipedia by imbalancing the administrator pool. Rangerdude 19:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are perfectly entitled to their private communications, including about matters related to Wikipedia. A number of avenues are available for this, and so long as people are not trying to dictate Wikipedia policy in private, there is nothing wrong with it. If you're concerned that people have too close a relationship based on possible private discussions, you can oppose the nomination, and since both of you are already doing that I don't see why you need additional "documents". --Michael Snow 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree w Michael Snow, one too many private documents have already been disclosed ;) Sam Spade 21:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? It certainly runs counter to the wiki philosophy of openness and transparency. And it certainly undermines the self-righteous mocking tone of the wikipedia article about the "wrong version", perhaps there is something to the conspiracy and collusion theories.--Silverback 21:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is friends with who is relevant (who BLINDLY sides with who is the real issue). Making undisclosing documents "illegal" will mean that only those willing to break the rules will have use of backchannel communications (sort of like gun control laws). The issue is building a great wikipedia. The evidence on the article pages and talk pages is the evidence for and against THAT. Unending searches for information that will, when found, prove your point is done in Congress and the courts (SCO vs. IBM) but has no place here. WAS 4.250 14:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, lots of us "coordinate" things via IRC. I don't think that we want to treat such communication as inappropriate; I find it extremely helpful in building and maintaining the community. Kelly Martin 05:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * When calling an admin for an official service it should be through official channels, there are too many admins, coordinating protection with timely reverts by their friends. This is personal use/abuse of admin powers and against the rules, it gives lie to the mocking tone of The wrong version.  One way to reassure the community, would be to ban any page protection that is not requested on the protection request page or directly related to simple vandalism.  It would also help, if the admins who provided the protection decision and service were selected at random or on a rotating basis.--Silverback 13:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Doing that would slow down the process to ridiculous levels and vandals would no doubt game the system to take advantage of that, I for one know that I have asked for help dealing with repeat vandals many times over IRC and can't image how hard it would be if I had to post on a page here and wait for an admin to see it instead of instantly being able to be in touch with an admin. Jtkiefer  T - 18:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism should be reported on the vandalism page and get a quick response. Personal use of the admin powers to assist friends is an abuse of admin powers, and should be dealth with seriously, but is practically unenforcable.  We probably should remove any official support or supply of email and irc services, and require as a matter of admin ethos if not by rules that all official communications be in the open, on the request and talk pages.  These in addition to the wikien-l email list (which is also in the open and archived) represent plenty of opportunities to build community.  Integrity and fairness are far more important thant he temporary state of any page.--Silverback 11:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

These are some of the reasons why I oppose.

Kim Bruning 12:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim? You know I respect you, but I have to ask: WHY THE HELL did you make a new subsection for your feelings?--Tznkai 15:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm... that's not ok? *kerblink* Kim Bruning 15:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so much not ok as a bit over the top. Why not just put it under your own vote?--Tznkai 15:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno, that's a lot of lines to put under a vote. Feel free to do it if you like, though. Kim Bruning 15:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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


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


 * You already voted to oppose him. Asking further questions would just be argumentative. --malathion talk 19:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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


 * Kim's bias in tolerating abuse of policy by Sam Spade, and resisting FM's efforts to curtail it, is well documented on Wikipedia. El_C 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey! No Fair! That's not true. I know you know better from personal experience! Kim Bruning 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough: The response to SS' copyvio claims and subsequent apology, for example, I felt, was less than evenhanded. Or, for example, your response to his Rogue Admin sig campaign against myself (while indeed a protest) was phrased in too lighthearted, not critical enough of a way. Yes, this is my interpretation. El_C 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't get people to do things that they are not willing to do. I can only ask them to do things that they were already willing to do one way or another.
 * I did get sam to retract his copyright issue
 * I did get sam to try to apologise at least
 * I wonder how many people here would agree that this was SS trying to apologise: [. Your comment on SS's Web page, in which you talked of his fake apology as if it were genuine, and gloated over the supposed discomfiture it would cause FeloniousMonk, was also a clear case of taking sides. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This topic has been covered. Please simply read the rest of this thread carefully. Kim Bruning 23:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have read it carefully; I also read the pseudo-apology carefully, and your comment on SS's Talk page. I've also carefully read your various attempts to pose as a neutral mediator in this, and the times (increasingly frequent of late) when that pose has slipped badly.  Finally, I've read the comment here that you quickly deleted, in which you made some absurd and flimsy claims.  Is there anything else that you'd like me to read? --Mel Etitis  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis| &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda;

&Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; )]] 13:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, if you'd like me to respond, you'll have to leave out the rhetoric. I can't find anything of substance to reply to. :-/ Kim Bruning 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did convince sam to apologise to you too.
 * I do this kind of thing dealing with conflicts all across the wiki (and off it), not just between sam and fm, or sam and you. What makes you think you're more or less important than others? (Err, well ok, so I like you folks, so sue me ;-) )  . Kim Bruning 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. Well, I'm sorry, Kim, but I'm afraid I won't retract, nor do I find it necessary to deny what I havne't charged. I still feel you have not been nearly firm enough with him, after he had exhibited (and continues to exhibit) such repeat issues with conflict and civility. Yes, you tried to have him apologize, as you mentioned, which is admirable of course, and you got instead this mock-apology. So...? Whereas with FM you seem fairly firm, at times, and you certainly seem determined now to ensure his nomination fails. And it isn't about myself (SS apology to myself proved to be less than genuine in the end, unfortunately) or FM so much as it is a systemic problem involving many editors, one which at the time you seemed to be in the habit of understating, and now I appear to be witnessing being ressurected in this RFA, via your "strong" opposition. Please review the Uninvited Co.'s comment. And if any and all that "sounds like an unsubstantiated personal attack," then I have failed here. El_C 03:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well you can't talk with feloniousmonk in the same way as that you can talk with sam spade. I tried being friendly with feloniousmonk at first, but that didn't work out too well. (Else I'd be doing it still ^^;;) Let me look at that comment by uninvitedcompany. :-) Kim Bruning 03:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you can talk to SS in a way that you can't with FM; most other people find the reverse. When one chooses sides, that's the usual result.  Using it as evidence in the dispute is at best naive. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Choosing sides at that exact moment in time would have been utter insanity, because it could have led to my immediate RFAr-ing by FM. Are you sure that your interpretation is correct? Talk with Sannse. Kim Bruning 00:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah seen that comment. Felonious has not only had conflicts with Sam Spade however. He's had conflicts with several people. He also made quite a scene first time I talked with him. :-/ Why do folks force me to say meaner and meaner things. Can we just leave it at this? Kim Bruning 03:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You jest, of course; SS is a notorious troll, and has left a trail of protest, complaint, denunciation, and irritation over a long list of articles. He's probably had conflicts with more editors than FeloniousMonk has even spoken to.  No-one's forcing you to say unpleasant things, nor are you saying more of them; you're just saying them more straightforwardly and openly, without the usual smokescreen of smileys and cutesy asides. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have just got to be kidding me now. I will not start fighting with other admins. Please, go talk with Sannse now. It'll probably be the wisest thing you'll ever do on wikipedia. Please? Kim Bruning 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kim. I really don't wish to make this RfA anymore confrontational than it already is. I'm sorry if it is coming across otherwise. I'd much rather talk to you about my cat, or anything else for that matter! :) El_C 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can leave it at that if you like and agree to disagree on this case. Thanks for your time, Kim. El_C 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an unsubstantiated personal attack from an admin who recently blocked Kim amid questionable circumstances.  Sam Spade 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


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


 * Well, yup, he did block me per policy. There's some interesting details to that, indeed, but nothing to do with personal emnity, thank goodness! Kim Bruning 22:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing at all. Personally, I like Kim, and I consider him a valuable contirbutor and admin, these oversights that I allude to notwithstanding. El_C 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

'===="whenever and wherever"==== Here in the last paragraph FeloniousMonk says "So you leave me little choice but to reintroduce the topic of your unsettled moral debts whenever and wherever you bring up the subject; like here.". So FeloniousMonk believes in disrupting any talk page at any time to settle moral debts??? WAS 4.250 15:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again you misinterpret a perfectly clear bit of English in defence of SS (see Talk:Racialism). This time you ignore "whenever and wherever you bring up the subject".  If SS doesn't bring up the subject, then FM won't; why exactly do you find that objectionable? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. First indeed do (see Talk:Racialism). I don't misinterpret there. Second by "whenever and wherever you bring up the subject" FeloniousMonk INCLUDED Sam saying
 * Actually I toned it down alot, and made it as polite as possible, leaving out, for example, references to her theatrical departure aprox 1yr ago. I have no patience for people who make this an unpleasent place to be. here.

And Sam saying
 * Yeah, I agree, my personal orang story is unworthy of the article namespace, as is the bit about me in my shorts XD I do appreciate your civility and admission of the possiblity of error, which I find heartening, considering it one of the finer traits of a wikipedian (and general debating opponant as well ;)

on the Human talk page. Do you understand now? WAS 4.250 17:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Unsavoury campaign against this candidate
Many editors will have received campaign messages on their Talk pages from SS (e.g.,, , &amp; ). I suspect (I hope) that this will have no effect, or even persuade editors to vote for FM. Some have asked in bewilderment for the diffs of SS's supposed apologies to FM (so far as I can tell he's ignored thoe requests, unsurprisingly); here's the only one that I know of:. As you'll see, it's not an apology at all, but another attack rather thinly disguised as an apology. All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If editors are wondering why someone should have such a bitter and long-running feud with SS, I hope that this begins to explain. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The posting I received from SS came after my vote, and had no effect on my vote. I had been watching FM and SV's pages, because SV had apparently engaged in personal use of her admin powers to assist a friend in a mild editing dispute.--Silverback 11:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey! Behave! That partial apology was a step in the mediation I'd been working on for months, that you personally decided to ruin! Don't blame either Sam or Felonious for anything there! Kim Bruning 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * please stop saying stuff like "partial apology". It's like saying someone is "partially pregnant". Sam's post says "You're a troll, but I apologize for my attempt to deal with your trollishness because my attempts were disruptive. I'm sorry I said fuck you because that might imply we have sexual relationships and we don't. And I'm sorry I called you a bastard because I honestly don't know if your mother was married when she had you". Please stop using the word "apology" when referring to this post. An apology would be "I agreed to no personal attacks when I started editing wikipedia. I broke that promise when I said 'fuck you, you rat bastard'. I am sorry. It was uncalled for. It won't happen again." An apology takes complete responsibility for the person's actions. This post calls FM a troll, blames FM for SS's behaviour, SS thumbs his nose at any policies he broke, and dances around any real apology by playing word games. He made no good faith effort to resolve the situation, he threw salt in the wound and made it worse. He should have been blocked for 40 hours for his "apology" alone for calling FM a troll, let alone the email he sent. FM takes the email to an admin to get this handled and after months of mediation this is what he got? It's no wonder this thing never got resolved. It's like taking a burgurlar to the police and the cops give him more of your stuff. FM wanted some integrity around this issue and got none from SamSpade and got worse from wikipedia. That he continues to call it an integrity issue is now the reason his Request for Adminship is being opposed? Cheese and Farking Rice, it's no wonder wikipedia has problems: a guy who knows integrity when he sees it gets opposed for adminship because he should have patted Sam on the back and said "here, take my wallet while you're at it" ??? Unbelievable. FuelWagon 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * !אמן Tomer TALK 03:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim, I'm sorry, but at the time, I found that so-called "partial apology" as much an insult toward your own efforts as one directed at FM. I continue to view it this way, and find it regterful (and puzzling) you're still unable to appreciate this. El_C 07:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's more to it, much much more, some of it off-wiki. But like I already said, I don't want to go and dredge the stuff up. Erm, well, just that, before Sam Spade, Feloniousmonk was tangled up with me instead. And before that... with other people too :-/ . Anyway I'll ask Sannse to talk with Mel Etitis about some of it though, just to defuse the situation with him. Kim Bruning 15:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And, as I've pointed out, before FM, SS has "tangled with" many, many people, far more than has FM; your harping on about FM's history in this regard is disingenuous at best. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please. I'm not talking about sam anymore in this thread. Forget Sam. Please. Read what I say. Please. Don't assume or make things up that I'm not saying! Kim Bruning 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim, with all respect, the point I think El_C is making is that what you regarded as steps in mediation were, in fact, steps in subterfuge making you think mediation was working. There is no way that "apology" can be regarded as anything but an abject failure of mediation, and you should be just as insulted as the rest of our intelligence is by the assertion that it is an apology.  It's a slap in Fel's face, a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility, and apparently a betrayal of your efforts.  That you are enabling Sam to use this RfA as a vehicle for Sam to continue his campaign against Fel is atrocious.  If you had a problem with Fel, that should not be coloring your judgment when it comes to trying to help resolve the problem between Fel and Sam...unless you're saying that you are Sam, or agree with Sam's egregious actions against Fel, both in the past and here wrt this RfA.  I have, happily, not come into direct conflict with Sam, and have actually agreed with him sometimes, but the way you're playing this whole thing is like Fel is a controversial editor and Sam is innocent as Snow White or Bo-peep, when in fact the opposite is true Fel is the one who, by comparison with Sam, is innocent as Snow White and the little sheep girl.  Tomer TALK  15:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, both sam and felonious are somewhat controverial editors, as far as editing goes (you two are *both* sometimes the center of controversy, so don't you dare deny it ;-) . Note that a formal mediation ended at the point in time where I tried to intervene between sam and felonious. Each time you ask me stuff, I need to dig up old stuff in my defence. I wish you'd stop, since I think it hurts others to do so. :-/ Kim Bruning 16:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To assert that Felonious is a snow white and uncontroversial editor is clearly not true, and my experience of him is indeed controversial even putting aside the Sam dispute, SqueakBox 15:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please review above ninjaedit. Tomer TALK  15:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm interested; who does Squeakbox think is a "snow-white and uncontroversial editor"? In my attempts to correct PoV editing and to stand up to PoV-pushing bullies (SS being a prime example), I have been the subject of controversy.  Do you think that that's a bad thing?  Being a good editor needn't involve controversy, if one limits oneself to uncontroversial topics, but in certain areas of Wikipedia it's simply not possible to be a good editor, and to retain one's integrity, without becoming mired in controversy.

If I might be so bold, this is what Sam's "apology" says without the smoke and mirrors: "I don't want to piss Kim off since s/he's in my corner in this fight between you and me, so, since you're a goddamn troll and I'm the innocent party in this whole dispute, I'm going to make nice and let you think you're getting away with genocide by making a gesture I'll lie and call an apology, since I've been unable to win with my version of logic.  I hereby permit you to let everyone know what a frackin troll I am by publishing the personal attack email I sent you, since this nice so-called apology will make you look vindictive and make me look like your victim.  Furthermore, I'm so sorry for saying "f^(]< you."  While it's normally an insult, which is exactly how I meant it, I will now engage in babbling about something else since I can't simply explain it away, and by the way, I'm not gay.  Also, I apologize for calling you a bastard, since in truth I don't know whether or not your mother really was a whore. Please try to be more constructive, like me, inserting pictures of topless girls into articles about bridges and the like, because that is, after all, what wikipedia is all about, and stop pissing me off and otherwise stirring up trouble with me and my new pet admin, who's only in my pocket because you had a conflict with hir some time ago." What's pathetic is that that's how the rest of us read it, including Sam, and that you, Kim, alone, actually think it constitutes a positive step in reconciliation.  Believe me, more often than not, I think Mel verges on being a troll, after all, he can't even properly spell "unsavory" (:-p), but what you're doing is just beyond my ability to fathom.  Do you honestly believe that Sam can be "reformed"?  Do you honestly believe that the way to do so is by denigrating other users, and enabling Sam to do so, calling it "steps in resolution"?!  /me goes to look at Requests for adminship/Kim Bruning, because if that's the case, something severe was overlooked somewhere along the way... Tomer TALK 16:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying anyone is perfectly uncontroversial like the driven snow, nor that controversy is of itself a bad thing. I do feel we need to concentrate on Felonious not Sam, and it is my worry about Felonious conflict with Sam, and how he has handled that, rather than him being a controversial editor per se, that worries me re admin powers. With our (FM and I) little dispute, quickly resolved, on Buju Banton it is not the gay slogan/insult dispute that worries me, it is my perception that Felonious was only editing because he was following Sam around disagreeing with him. I haven't seen any similar behaviour by you, Mel, either with Sam or anyone else SqueakBox 16:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to your suspicion, I can only point to SS's contributions list, and indicate the large number of articles with which SS is concerned to which FM has made no edits (even though some of them are in themselves highly controversial, such as Nazi mysticism, Historical persecution by Jews, Anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, Whiteness studies, Racialism, etc.). I don't think that it can be said that FM is following SS around. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I hear that. As I said while voting, I would want to see some evidence of the conflict between them having been resolved to change my vote. Or more specifically, recent (post Rfc's) evidence that Felonious has seriously tried to resolve their conflict, SqueakBox 17:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's remarkably unfair to take Sam's conflict with FM and use it to oppose FM's nomination. FM has dealt extremely well with Sam in my opinion.  He has shown no indication that if he had the ability to block Sam he would have done it.  And, as someone else said above, Sam is notorious for engaging people in conflicts.  Exploding Boy 23:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Contd from project page

 * (moved from above) FM. Without going into who is to blame, your nomination has caused a minature wikiwar amoung the populace, including a few normally smart intelligent admins. Would you be willing to withdraw your nomination (for atleast a month) for the sake of keeping the peace? --Tznkai 18:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tznkai, I'm not sure your comment is fair or accurate. There are a only small number of people posting comments about their opposition, and I'm sure they'll abide by whatever consensus emerges. It's not quite a wikiwar. I also wonder whether some of the comments could be moved to the talk page, as this page is getting hard to read and edit. Would anyone mind if I did that? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, SqueakBox 20:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Slim, perhaps I used poor wording, but I am willing to say with complete confidence the amount of vitrol and disruption this RFA has caused is far above and beyond what we should tolerate. I do think that if FM withdraws it would be a big step in keeping the peace for the time being. I am horrified that I suggested it, and even more horrified that I still feel justified by the conduct of others involved.--Tznkai 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, I agree there's been too much vitriol, but I'm not sure we can blame FM for that, as he has hardly posted anything here. Perhaps this situation can be used as a watershed of some sort to bring the dispute to an end. That would certainly be my hope, because no one benefits from this. Regarding FM as an admin, I'm certain he'd be a good admin and would act responsibly: I wouldn't have made the nomination otherwise. You said yourself that you see him as a good editor and believe he's ready for adminship. It does seem a shame not to vote for him, or even to ask that he withdraw, while believing he'd be good in the job. (However, I believe that nominators and nominees shouldn't badger people to change their votes: I'm mentioning this to you only because you voted neutral, not oppose, but even then I'm a little hesitant to say more, because how you vote is entirely up to you.) Thank you for your constructive input anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim, I agree that it is not FM's fault. RfAs are not popularity contests, or atleast should not be. They should not be a measure of how good of a person that person is. It is a measure of how effective of an admin they will be.
 * They key word here is effective. Notice I didn't sya "worthy". If my goal was worthyness and justice, I'd be leading an angry mob with pitch forks to a quite a few admins who have their heads stuck far up orifices not meant for them. Heads would roll.. My goal is not justice, but a civil peaceful enviroment for us to work in. As much as I enjoy the quote "Peace is not merely the abscence of war, it is the presence of justice", we need to have some modicum of peace first.
 * FM got the short end of the stick here. I do not debate it. Part of this may have been his fault a long time ago. Maybe not. I don't know. The fact is, this current state of affairs is appalling, and FM's nomination is paying for it. Thats to bad, but its true. --Tznkai 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'm still hoping some good might come of this though i.e. that it might trigger the end of the dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that might qualify as wishful thinking, but I admit I have been discussing this to death with one of FM's detractors so I'm a bit burned out. Thank you for moving the comments by the by--Tznkai 21:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And thank you for keeping them moved. ;-) I've also been discussing this, so if I can be of any help, please e-mail me, as I'd like to see this brought to an end. SlimVirgin (talk)  21:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. We can finish this in e-mail later then. --Tznkai 21:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"amount of vitrol and disruption this RFA has caused is far above and beyond what we should tolerate. I do think that if FM withdraws it would be a big step in keeping the peace for the time being." The vitrol and disruption on this rfa is not coming from FM. The source of vitrol is quite clear. And FM should not withdraw simply because someone else can't be civil. What I cannot tolerate is the complete lack of integrity that is being propagated by a number of editors using this RFA as a means to settle scores, extract revenge, and assassinate characters. And if making FM an admin puts one more person on the front line against the teaming unwashed hordes who want to derail this entire process, then all the more reason to keep this rfa open. FuelWagon 22:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that FM is not the source of the character assassination campaigns here. In fact, I admire his restraint in saying anything about Sam. I think we are at the situation where continuing this RfA to fight against poor behavior just Isn't Worth it. At some point, we just stop feed the trolls, walk away, and come back a month later armed with shotguns.--Tznkai 23:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I'm concerned that it might be a disaster. I'll have to very carefully watch his edits and admin actions for weeks or so... :-( I really don't trust him using admin privs correctly at this point in time. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise? Kim Bruning 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would go so far as to say that you are unconvincible that FM is anything other than what your opinion of him already says it is, and that you're not looking to be convinced so much as you are trying your best to do some convincing FuelWagon 00:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FW, as a personal favor, could you avoid backing Kim into a corner? I've disccussed this with him at length and I'm making a modicum of headway.--Tznkai
 * I try to convince you, you try to convince me. We'll end up in the middle somewhere! :-) That's consensus eh? Kim Bruning 00:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * *blink* Ok... so those were several questions and requests for information, and several duplicates of in a couple of former versions. Errr... right. Kim Bruning 00:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And in fact, slimvirgin has managed to convince me. :-P A long time ago, I once gave my word I believe, so now I'll keep it. :-) Kim Bruning 15:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason to be a smartass.--Tznkai 15:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh? Oh hmm, maybe I am taking it out on Fuelwagon, sowwy. ^^;; Kim Bruning 12:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He has more or less 3 to 1 in favour. This wasn't consensus for Weyes. FM isn't yet necessarily going to be an admin, SqueakBox 22:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's just allow the RfA to take its course without undue speculations. I am enocuraged by the tens of editors and admins who voted in support, including two three current arbitrators (one of whom being the only male arbitrator I voted for who won &mdash; the only female one I voted for who won, Sanse, hopefuly will be by here to help calm the situation down), and another arbitrator who, while personally appointed by Jimbo, I would most certainly vote for. And now also strong support from Kim! I find it regretful that this RfA continues to be so confrontational. El_C 23:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

goethean's comments (continued from Talk: page)

 * 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 &#2384; 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 &#2384; 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 &#2384; 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. FM's userpage contains a "declaration of bias". That you call it "boasting" is a bit misleading. Every editor has personal views, no one should be faulted for that, nor should FM be faulted for letting his be known. I just read your "facts" link, and it seems to me that his viewpoint was needed to balance the view you and SamSpade (surprise) were pushing at the time. As for calling FM's actions around SamSpade's antics "vengeance" "retribution", well, that's what I would call "disingenuous". Sam broke NPA. And he never apologized, nor was he blocked. Sam is the one who broke integrity here, not FM. Don't blame FM for wanting some integrity restored around this problem. FuelWagon 19:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that you share FM's agenda and tactics. The big fight on Human was that some wanted to add an acknowledgement to the intro that some humans believe in religion and that some believe in a soul. Not that souls exist &mdash; that religions exist. FM fought me on that everyday for several months. Of course, you think it's I that was "pushing a viewpoint". The fact remains that FM is here to fight religion. He is here to push his POV. And prating about "integrity" doesn't impress me. As Emerson said, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our silverware" --goethean &#2384; 19:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And speaking of misleading, I didn't call it "vengeance". I asked if it should be interpreted as retribution. --goethean &#2384; 19:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone mind if I move these comments to the talk page where the other comments are? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I do mind. --goethean &#2384; 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "some wanted to add an acknowledgement to the intro that some humans believe in religion and that some believe in a soul." Wow. That was it? Several months of fighting over that little sentence? You brought nothing else to the table? You were civil, made no attacks, assumed good faith, and followed policy to the letter? With all your fancy quotes about integrity, you can't even give an honest representation of the dispute. Unless of course, you expect me to believe you were entirely without fault. Disingenuous? Please. You complain about FM disrupting wikipedia to get an apology, yet you are disrupting an RFA to grind your axe and claim complete innocence. You want to resolve whatever grudge you've got with FM? Start by getting a little honesty over what contributions you made to create the dispute in the first place. But don't quote integrity to me until you get some. FuelWagon 20:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heal thyself. You've already accused me of pushing a viewpoint on Human. Now you're asking me what transpired in the talk pages? You are the one who first brought up integrity where none existed. I'm giving my vote and my reasons, and I will not be shouted down by the likes of you. I'm terribly sorry that that disrupts your teaparty. --goethean &#2384; 20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You came with the story of a dispute that lasted several months, apparently over the simple insertion of a rather bland and inoffensive sentence, while painting a picture that FM was wearing the black hat and you were dressed all in white. I questioned the honesty of your portrayal. And you say I'm shouting you down? Your righteous indignation is wearing thin. FuelWagon 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Goethean, I'd say everyone involved in the discussion at Human was inadvertently pushing a POV (myself included), which is why it was such an interesting (though exhausting) debate, because it went to the heart of how we should interpret NPOV. Those of us who wanted to exclude references to souls from the introduction wanted the modern scientific position to be the NPOV one. Those advocating references to religion in the intro saw popular opinion as part of NPOV too. It's a debate that continues on other pages. Neither side is acting in bad faith: it was a genuine difference of opinion, and I think both sides shifted a little in their positions. I know that some of your arguments were highly persuasive. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * SV, I appreciate your tone, and agree with your comments. What disturbs me about FM is his insistence, which I linked to above, that we all know what the facts are. He doesn't seem to understand that differences of opinion or perception are genuine, and can occur even with integrity on all sides. That is why I oppose his adminship. --goethean &#2384; 21:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Children
The more I read the discussion the more I think that FeloniousMonk and Sam Spade's dispute can be likened to petty fights my children have. Sam Spade's comment is totally inappropriate, and would have deserved a long time out, loss of privileges and, if a second offense, a drop of liquid hand soap on the tongue (what can I say I am old fashioned). My experience is that if when one child gets to that level of frustration that they do something the community (in my case the family) has deemed unacceptable then there is never a lack of fault on the other side (though they are usually less severley punished than the one who lost control). Add to that 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 01:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your maturity in this situation. FuelWagon 02:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can't tell the difference between legitimate comments and vandalism by the AOL morons that also use this IP address - maybe you should reconsider your vote. And I would have used a box of soap on such a comment ;) withdrawn but not absent 02:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * left an oppose vote and comment, which I'm moving here, as I believe only user accounts may vote. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, August 12, 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)
 * Moved back again. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just did some reading on surveys and RfA votes - and actually I may stand corrected. I was fairly confident anon votes don't count, but SlimVirgin may be right - they might count? Anyone have a definative answer. withdrawn but not absent 02:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon, actually I moved your vote without properly reading your comment, which said that it wasn't a vote, so I'm in the wrong here, which will teach me to read things more carefully. I'm therefore going to copy it back, though generally it would be appreciated if most comments could be made here on the talk page. But you're allowed one. My apologies for the confusion. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * You've already done it. Thank you. I'm on the slow side today. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV - I was watching carefully because if I step off the main article page I often get immediately reverted - but I was very surprised it was you from what I have seen of your edits and attitudes. Have a good day withdrawn but not absent 11:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that almost everything anyone does on Wikipedia is essentially archived for as long as Wikipedia itself exists. Judging someone by a single argument or action can therefore be unfair; I am sure that you, too, have said something that you later regretted at some point in the past year.  The important thing is that FeloniousMonk and Sam Spade seem to have resolved the dispute in question...  An adult is someone who admits their mistakes, not someone who never makes them.  Aquillion 03:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed re adults admitting and move on, however, this is more than a single argument or action but a consistent set of actions over a time. I am glad that Sam and FM have made up - Sam seems both quick to forgive and to apologize (from what I have seen he needs to be :) ), but I still think some more time needs to pass - a wikitimeout if you will. withdrawn but not absent 11:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"Sam seems both quick to forgive and to apologize". As all the evidence is against this, I'm wondering what made you write it. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I don't follow all the community drama but I remember a quick apology to El C - the withdrawl of his opposition to this RfA - and another apology I happened across about 2 weeks ago - that's without research. However, people with long memories and a lack of ability to just look at the edits not the writer are why I am no longer registered. withdrawn but not absent 03:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was far from a quick, nor, as I mention above, did it prove to be as genuine as I had hoped for. El_C 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Moreover, according to Kim Bruning, SS had to be pressured into even the fake apologies. I should add that I have to deal with SS on a regular basis, and he hasn't changed one whit; I don't need a long memory, I just have to check my watchlist. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you guys purposefully dense and missing the point? SS's behaviour in many cases is inexcusable - and you may be right about the interpersonal relationships of SS and FM - as I don't keep up with it and don't want to.
 * Mature people have to learn to deal with inappropriate behavior by others in a mature way - I am questioning FM's adminship because I don't see that maturity there yet. Like the other comments that encouraged me to make the analogy re Children, yours just strengthen the analogy.
 * I don't put up with the bullshit, "he made me do it" from my children and the analogous "but SS behavior was so bad FM had to react that way" is wrong as well.
 * The question here is about FM, it may need context, but to use context as a pretext to say that SS's bad behavior excuses FM's inappropriate behavior is itself inexcusable. Even if FM's behavior was much less "wrong" than SS - the fact is that it showed an immaturity that an admin should not have. Of course it doesn't matter now. 152.163.100.67 12:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Are you guys purposefully dense and missing the point?" Ah, OK, now at least I know what you mean by mature discussion. I'll pass on that, if you don't mind, and stick to my own approach.

I'll just point out, however, that I clearly responded to a specific claim that you made, and your exasperation at my supposed lack of understanding is based upon the peculiar and groundless notion that I was in fact responding to something else. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits after vote closure
There were some formatting problems that led to the neutral votes being miscounted, which have been corrected following the close of the vote. As these are mechanical changes, not new votes or changes to existing votes, I suggest they be left in place. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Since it's been noted here, and discussed elsewhere. I concur. :-) Kim Bruning 13:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I concur as well since it all turned out right. Well done!  :-) Rednblu | Talk 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we're all friends again. :-)  Tomer TALK  19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)