Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Malleus Fatuarum

Final (46/40/8); withdrawn by candidate at 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs) - I first encountered this user 6 months or so ago, as a GA reviewer. Since then I've been constantly impressed by the job he does on wikipedia. A cornerstone of the GA review team and one of wikipedia's best copyeditors, he is also a great content editor himself, with several FAs to his name and one of the big reasons for the success of Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Fair enough yeah, but why should he get the mop? Well, firstly and most importantly perhaps, he has demonstrated his commitment to the wikipedia project and shown his competence in the roles he has so far chosen to play, which as far as I can see makes it very difficult to argue he should be denied use of the tools if and when he ever needs them. Secondly, Malleus has proven himself to be a highly astute user, thoroughly honest, and personally strong. He understands what wikipedia is actually about, and, as an incidental note of comfort, is unlikely to subordinate that to his own ego, or to wiki-culture herdsweep and doublethink. Wikipedia needs admins like Malleus, and I am delighted to nominate him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Iridescent — I first came across Malleus back in September 07, when he pounced on an extremely long article I'd written, spent two days rewriting it despite knowing nothing of the subject, and every single one of his edits was an improvement. I nominated him for his derailed-in-odd-circumstances first RFA, and am happy to do so again. Last time, I wrote that Malleus has 7500 edits and every one of them was a bona fide useful edit; this time round, he has 10000+ and still every one's a useful edit — whether the thankless task of cleaning up other peoples' spelling and grammar; patiently explaining policy, guidelines, the difference between them and when they can safely be ignored to new users; arguing and debating on policy pages for the changes in policy he feels would best serve the encyclopedia, whilst being willing to back down without sulking should the community not agree with him; and, most importantly, collaborating with numerous other users to hugely expand a wide range of articles, from Didsbury to Ferret. He's continued to work in the much-maligned WP:GA and WP:GAR snakepits, despite the inevitable streams of flames every editor there is subjected to (and which derailed his last RFA), is one of the driving forces behind WikiProject Greater Manchester and took Stretford and Peterloo Massacre, among others, to FA status. As Deacon is too polite to quite say above, Wikipedia has far too many admins who follow wherever the herd happens to be stampeding on this particular day, far too many admins who are interested in policy for the sake of policy, and far too many people (admin and non) who treat Wikipedia as a chatroom with an encyclopedia attached. Long long ago in a galaxy far far away, our other founder set out a list of guidelines that to me have never been bettered as a summary of what Wikipedia should be, and Malleus is one of those few users who meets every single one of those bullet-points. I not only think he'll make a great admin; I think he'll make one of the best we've ever had. — iridescent 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by User:Keeper76. Ok, ok, I know that three nominators is sometimes seen as over the top, but I don't care. This is a superb candidate. I've been trying to get Malleus to go for "RfA#2" for a couple of months now. I cannot think of a more qualified candidate for the itty bitty extra buttons. MF is not only a content builder, he is an exceptional content builder. Ever been to GA? Malleus is there. Ever been to FA? Malleus is there. Both as a contributor, and as one of the best, most comprehensive, reviewers we have. Fellow editors, besides me, have been begging him to "try another RfA". After seeing the first one, and Malleus is the first to admit that it was an ego bruiser, I believe it would've passed had he not withdrawn. But he withdrew, understanding fully that he is perfectly capable of contributing to this zany website without a few tiddly buttons. That said, he should have the few tiddly buttons. He is an extraordinary editor. He speaks his mind (don't we all know it!), he is not afraid of controversial areas of Wiki, and because of that, we desperately need more editors like Malleus to take on the reins of adminship. I am extremely proud to have the privilege of nominating such a strong candidate. Something I promised Malleus a long time ago: I am so entirely convinced that MF would be a standout admin, that without hesitation, if he were ever to lose the toolbelt because of misuse of the extra buttons, for any reason, I'll gladly give up my own adminship along side him. I'm not personally in CAT:AOR, consider this nomination my criteria for recall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Although I have said that I intended to keep this RfA open until the end, it has become clear that to do so would be a waste of the community's time, time that would be better spent looking at more suitable candidates. Also, the longer it goes on now, the greater the risk that I may begin to take the opposition personally, which would be unfair to those who have taken such trouble to express their honestly held opinions as well as potentially demoralising for me. Consequently, I would request that this nomination be withdrawn. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am primarily a content builder, and that will not change whether the community sees fit to give me the sysop bit or not. The admin work I anticipate getting involved in would be in support of other content builders, in areas like the (appropriate) resurrection of deleted content, helping with protected page moves, occasional page protection when necessary, and perhaps helping with 3RR disputes in which I am not personally involved. I've never been in a 3RR dispute myself, and I'd hope to be able to encourage other editors to the negotiating table instead of risking a (potentially demotivating) block because they care passionately about some content or other. There are some admin tools that I would almost certainly never use, like changing the user interface, and others I would probably only use rarely if at all, such as blocking. I would not shy away from any part of the admin role, but neither would I become a regular, or even irregular, habituee of the admin IRC channel for instance.
I've been somewhat reluctant to put myself forward for this role, because if asked the perfectly reasonable question "Why do you need the tools?", my honest answer would be that I don't. If this RfA is successful, then I will use them in the content areas of the encyclopedia where I already operate, a little better equipped to deal with some of the more mundane aspects of adminship. If it's unsuccessful, then I'll just carry on as before, no harm done. I understand that adminship is about trust, and that the community has to believe that I can be trusted not to abuse the tools. To circumvent an optional question that I've seen cropping up in a few other RfAs recently, there's nothing I can do or say that would convince anyone who was inclined to believe otherwise that abusing the tools is the very last thing that I'd be likely to do. Not least because it would be letting down the editors who have encouraged me to take this step, and in particular the nominators. All I can promise is that I would tread very carefully, and take very small baby steps before I touched any of the admin buttons.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's difficult to say, and probably not for me to judge. I took some pride in developing what is on the face of it an article about a pretty boring peat bog to FA, and I very much enjoyed being a part of the rather intense collaboration that brought the Peterloo Massacre from start to FA in just three weeks. But I take just as much pleasure in helping other editors get through the GA/FA hoops; I would point to Santikhiri, or SS Christopher Columbus as examples of that. If pushed, I might be inclined to say that my best contribution to wikpedia has been the articles that I've managed to tickle through GA, or help through FA with a little bit of copyediting, like Walter de Coventre, for instance.
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: Of course I have, and I don't doubt that I will in the future. I would be very surprised – and indeed suspicious – if any editor had not been involved in conflicts. The only recent editing dispute that I can recall is here. Did it stress me? Not in the slightest. Have I been stressed by editing conflicts in the past? No, not really, more like bemused. I will try to deal with editing conflicts in the future as I have tried to deal with them in the past. I will try to keep the discussion focused on the issue, I will avoid edit warring and encourage others to do so as well, I will encourage talk page discussion, and I will try not to be diverted by ad hominem attacks. Where it may be helpful I will encourage and solicit third-party opinions.
An Optional Question From Trees Rock
4. How Can we Trust you as a admin?
A.Perhaps you shouldn't, and many might agree with you. The only answer I can give is that whatever other objections there may be to my becoming an admin, one that could never be raised would be my committment to building this encyclopedia, and to helping others to do the same. That's where my focus would remain, and if my contributions to the mainspace thus far provide you or anyone else with the slightest hint that I might damage the encyclopedia in some way, then of course you ought not to trust me, and oppose this RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Keepscases
5. Why is your signature spelled differently than your account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
A. You mean Malleus Fatuarum vs Malleus Fatuorum. It's a matter of gender neutrality that I think you may find was discussed on my talk page some time ago. My pidgin Latin apparently let me down in my original choice of user name, as it was suggested that Fatuarum (I think it was) could be interpreted as "female fools". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from TravisTX

6. When patrolling speedy deletion nominations, I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. Has each article been tagged correctly? If not, please explain how you would handle it. (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)
a. Sam Jones
A: I would say that this article ought to have been tagged as A7, and should be speedily deleted.
b. Rob smith
A: I would consder that a G10, and another that ought to be speedily deleted.
c. Aliens on earth
A: This is an interesting one. I'm inclined to agree that in this case the G1 tag is understandable, but personally I'd be inclined to encourage the editor to improve this article as an alternative to speedily deleting it.

Optional Question By Zginder

7. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A. I would guess that the politically correct answer would be WP:V, but of course all of the policies are important. For that reason I'd say that they are all subsumed by one small part of WP:IAR: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit."

Optional question from InDeBiz1

8. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
A. A big question. My short answer is that I most certainly do believe that it is possible for anyone who lost the trust of the community, for whatever reason, to regain it, and I don't subscribe to "once blocked, always watched". My slightly longer answer is that for trust to be regained isn't a matter of simply watching a clock, or counting edits, it has to depend on what it was that caused the block, so it's horses for courses. It makes no difference to me whether a user has previously been banned or not, I take everyone as I find them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q: Why do you believe you will make a good admin?
Q: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
Q: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
Q: Let's say you are an admin. You've protected a page, and a user complains on your user page about it, opening with "What's the matter with you, numbnuts?!" What would you do? And what is the basis for your action in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 2

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Beat the noms! To expand somewhat, Malleus' article writing skills and refreshing attitude means he will be a definite net-positive. EJF (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'd-be-silly-not-to-support! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support No reason to think he'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support obviously. — iridescent 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support I personally would have nominated, but experience says that we have enough nominators here. However I'm going to couch my support in terms of a nomination. Malleus and I have had very strong disagreements in the past. I opposed his first RFA, and in recent weeks have recognised this was a bad decision on my part. Malleus is, foremost, an article writer. Just as importantly he is an article writer who understands policy and understands how sometimes the application of policy needs to be done outside of the exact letter, and in a clear cut fashion. Let me make no bones here. I find Malleus at times to be "abrasive". I'm certain others do to. I'm also certain some people may oppose this RfA because of his nature, which he has steadfastly said he will not change - and all power to him for that stance. However we need admins that are not afraid to bite the bullet. There is, in my mind, no evidence Malleus will use sysop tools to his own ends - none whatsoever. His contribution history evidences a total neutrality within the mainspace in every way.
    • I believe he will be strong.
    • I believe he will do what is right for Wikipedia with no personal agenda.
    • I believe that granting Malleus the tools will benefit the project.
    Fundamentally, I'd ask those that have had the occasional "run in" with Malleus to do as I am doing - look beyond our own feelings of being slightly "miffed" at his occasional bluntness and recognise that this is an excellent opportunity to move forward with added strength. In essence, we are all proud Wikipedians and the long term goal is to write, improve, keep clean and give away a high quality work. Malleus with +sysop is another step towards that. Pedro :  Chat  20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    "All power to him" for refusing to even consider that he might want to tone it down? You really think Wikipedia would somehow be better if more editors refused to listen to community input and were more abrasive? --JayHenry (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    A good point Jay, and I appreciate this seems a strange statement, but one I used with due consideration in the context of this RfA. I totally agree this is a community effort, and that editors tend to accept and follow community norms and in general this is as it should be. However I also believe that at times we need to be unafraid to go outside those norms - the very spirit of WP:IAR perhaps. No, I do not want abrasive editors. But we have them. That's reality. I don't want abrasive admins - but we already have them. What I want is neither here nor there. What Wikipedia needs is another thing. I find, on balance, that an administrator who is steadfast and principled is still an asset to the project provided they will not abuse or misuse administrator tools to further their view. This is what I find here. Whilst I do not disagree Malleus is abrasive (my own term here!) I also find him to be 100% neutral in the mainspace - and see no risk and only gain to the project. I may be wrong. Alas, if this RfA continues the way it's going I'll not find out if I'm wrong or right. But I personally doubt I would have been in error over this editor. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support as nom. Once again, editor is a fine article contributor and there is no reason to deny him use of the tools should he need them! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. per Pedro. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong support: You really have to read the nominations to get a feel for what this RFA is all about. Malleus has been headstrong, challenging, constructivly critical, and always seeks improvement within Wikipedia. We have a process here to select admins that works from the bottom upwards, which has its weaknesses and probably won't favour Malleus. Admins tend to be selected on the basis of their unquestioning conformity to process, and being a little bland. I'm looking at this objectively not from the point of view of "who would I want to manage me?", but "who would I want to choose to manage my employees/business? Who can I trust to look after my affairs?" -- Malleus fits the bill of someone who can take this website further with these fairly minor tools. Give this man a chance to help us all; he works for us. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - always helpful & supportive. Will use the tools constructively.— Rod talk 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. I agree that the issues raised in the oppose section are concerning, and that there are things that Malleus needs to work on, but I don't think that he'd be an abusive admin. Acalamari 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support I believe this candidate will be a fine Admin. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support While I'm not seeing as much experience in admin-related areas as I would like, I've encountered this user a couple times, and I know that this is a very helpful user. Easy to communicate with, and has excellent article writing abilities. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support I have no problem with his attitude. Keepscases (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support I've seen Malleus give thoughtful input into WP:FAC. It's Wikipedia's policy to grant the tools to those who have been active for a few months and can be trusted with the tools. He will use the tools in his area of expertise, the mainspace, and he has said that he will not use some of the tools outside that area. While I appreciate that it's a package, the question is: is the user to be trusted with having those extra buttons even if they're not used? The answer is yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong support per noms, especially iridescent. Malleus is a fine article builder, and an editor who strives to improve wikipedia with his every edit, and he will be able to contribute more to the project with admin tools. Unafraid to voice his opinions, I find him a breath of fresh air; the project needs diversity of opinion to survive and Malleus provides that. I firmly believe that he will use the tools wisely and fairly and wish him the best of luck. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support. All I need to say has been said already, or in the comment I made in his first RfA. They still apply. Better to have someone wo gets into disagreements because of the volume of edits he makes than have someone with suspiciously low numbers of disagreements for a large number of edits. Now that Jza84 has expanded his reasons, I'd have to specially mention my strong agreement with his reasons.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Everyone seems to agree he is exceptionally helpful and an outstanding article writer and editor. He just doesn't seem the type to go into some area he knows little or nothing about and start making decisions at random - he cares too much about the project. The totality of his behaviour proves that. Yes he can be grumpy and stubborn. But none of us are perfect. He'd be among the most truly helpful people here. I'm disappointed in the direction this is going and hope things can yet turn around. Dean B (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support great user and a very dedicated member of wikipedia. Can see no problems with him becoming an admin as I am sure he will make good use of the tools. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Okay so I wrote out an oppose, and changed my mind and wrote out a neutral, and then decided to give in and support. There have been lots of instances where I've read something you've wrote and frowned, or at least disagreed with you, but I think it's pretty clear from your contributions that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Yeah, you've been a little brusque with some of our longer-established editors but I can't honestly tell myself they didn't deserve it and I can't imagine you behaving that way with newbies. The question is meant to be, "Is this guy going to fuck up with the tools?" and in this case the answer is probably no. naerii - talk 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Malleus is hard-working, trustworthy, and a wonderful content builder. He's a great asset to Wikipedia. Majoreditor (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support – Let me get this right – we have a candidate that by all opinions (Both Support & Oppose) praises this individual as an article builder, and if I am not mistaken, as noted in an Oppose opinion, not only a good editor but “…is a fantastic article writer”. Been with the project coming up on two years next month – has accumulated over 16,000 edits – No blocks – has worked in all facets of Wikipedia – including a good working knowledge of Policy and the vast reason for a majority of the Oppose opinions are is that he is “Rude”. My, My, My. My. My have we all become that fearful of honesty that we shout, “He’s being Rude”, I can’t trust him with the tools, he may holler at me, IN CAPS. Am sorry, if I am wrong tell me I am wrong – If I screw up an edit – tell me I screwed up an edit – do not sugar coat it or spend a half hour trying to figure out “Just the right way” to tell me – Be honest enough to spit it out. Best of luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support clearly a valuable 'pedia bulder. I have seen many of the exchanges and agree there is an acid tongue there but I don't get a sense of maliciousness as I have done elsewhere. I sighed when I read the exchange on the 8th of May with Raul but hopefully that will not happen too often. Ultimately a net positive though I have crossed my fingers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. For what it's worth. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - I see no reason not to.--Peter Andersen (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support based on only a couple casual interactions but also an image since removed from Mona Lisa and later deleted. The candidate demonstrated--with zero prepping--an outstanding understanding of a tough choice and I am convinced that good judgment comes naturally. Best of luck. —SusanLesch (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. I am saddened this is failing. Neıl 龱 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support. I have concerns about civility and all the rest, but I think that if you use your tools only in the approved ways, Wikipedia will be benefitted. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Pedro makes excellent points. I too have disagreed with Malleus on occasion, to the point where the best response was to just walk away so as too not make an unduly rash or harsh statement. Recently there has been a trend toward rigorous editcountitis based opposes. I do not believe they are always the best way to decide on a candidate's suitability. I believe that Malleus does understand policy, that he has the fortitude and communication skills to, "justify himself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour." I believe that he has the Encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and that I can trust him with the mop. Dlohcierekim 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support per nominators and just about everything else that has been said, especially per Jza84 and DDStretch's statements. If anything, it seems to be the confrontational nature, not so much the civility, that occasionally bothers other editors. If I had the impression that Malleus is trying to be confrontational for the argument's sake, I probably wouldn't support, but after reviewing, I see his actions as being driven by a care for the encyclopedia's content. Confrontation, unlike drama, is necessary and often the only way certain mainspace difficulties can be overcome. I admire and wish to support editors who don't shy away from contentious areas (and occasional annoyance) as long as they have the encyclopedia (and not their point of view, or their ego) in mind. Malleus Fatuarum looks like a good candidate. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support, per nom#3. I'm extremely glad I was offline this weekend, I woulda had to apologize to a lot of people below. Malleus is a fit candidate, and is taking this in stride, for which I'm glad. But I'm extremely disappointed in the rehashing going on below in some instances (not all) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. No problems with an admin with some personality. Net positive. Tan | 39 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  34. I believe Malleus is incorrect that good admin candidates must be good content creators. I also believe many of his opposers are incorrect that admin candidates must have experience dealing with deletion and blocking. His indications of where he plans to use the tools, and where he doesn’t, seem to correlate well with his experience, so I have no worries there. Yes, he can appear combative. I wish he wasn’t, much as I bet he wishes I’d contribute more to article writing. But, last I checked, we’re not deciding whether or not a candidate is our perfect vision of an admin (i.e. usually a copy of ourselves); we're not deciding whether he would make a good politician; we’re deciding if the encyclopedia would benefit if the candidate had the tools. From everything I’ve seen, I expect he will still argue with people. I also have every reason to believe he won’t use the additional tools to gain an advantage during such an argument. Indeed, due to his feelings about admin accountability and abuse, he is probably less likely than others to do so. My overriding question is: do I trust him to use the tools to improve the encyclopedia, not abuse them, and not significantly damage the encyclopedia during his learning curve. The answer, of course, is yes. --barneca (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    You said that better than my nom statement. Seeing as you just released your statement under the GFDL, I may just steal it and put it up there as my own. Oh, wait...attribution. Damn. Nevermind....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  35. Reconciliation. Rudget (Help?) 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Malleus is a strong contributer who has demonstrated excellent judgement. His use of the tools would benefit WP. He has an occasional sharp tongue, but I find his penchant for telling it like it is refreshing. Most of us cross the line at times. He has, but only rarely. Sunray (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support After looking through your contributions I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. To paraphrase LBJ, probably better to have you on the inside of the admin tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. Polly (Parrot) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support without hesitation. True, this editor has displayed an unwillingness to walk on eggshells around other editors but I don't view that as a negative. My interactions with him have been overwhelmingly positive and he displays excellent dedication to the project. --Laser brain (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support Knows what IAR means. Zginder 2008-05-19T21:30Z (UTC)
    especially when it comes to civility </friendly sarchasm> ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
     :lol: You're too sharp for own good Balloonman, you'll cut yourself one day. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  40. For what its worth... Support- just because you tell it like it is doesnt mean people should be sensitive and withold something that could turn you from an excellent contributor to an exceptional contributor. Qb | your 2 cents 11:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. I don't think I've worked directly with this editor but have seen his/her work and interactions with others and have nothing but favourable impressions. We need strong-minded administrators. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support. Barneca said it better than I could. --Kbdank71 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  43. No experience at AIV or CSD, spends virtually none of their time vandal fighting. This leaves me no option but to support. RMHED (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Based on my experience working with MF, I do not think he will abuse the tools. He certainly calls a spade a spade, mind. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support. the wub "?!" 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Support The editor is strong in article space contribs!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casesunit (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    This !vote is this account's only contribution to Wikipedia. It was placed in the wrong position in this list and included a signature that broke WP's formatting. Gwernol 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    And is now indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. Gwernol 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support. I have observed this editor's valuable contributions over many months. I have no concerns about any difficulties in the past: sometimes the most talented editors have a choppy time of it in the earlier stages. I expect that Malleus will continue as the spirited and committed Wikipedian that he is now, no matter what the outcome here; but I am very confident that the community will gain if he is entrusted with the tools.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. I’m sorry, but I’m going to oppose here with deepest regrets. Malleus is a fantastic article writer, along with being a great contributor to the FA and GA processes. However, he has no experience in the tasks that admins have to undertake. Now, I’ve only gone back to November (about 9000 edits if I’m correct), but on the deletion side of things, he’s participated in less than 5 XfD debates, so I have no way of knowing how he would judge the notability and suitability for inclusion of articles. A look at his contribs, and deleted contribs show he has not tagged any pages for speedy deletion, so again, there is no way to tell how he would judge articles in CAT:CSD as to whether or not they could be speedy deleted. I also have no evidence that he knows what all the criteria for speedy deletions are, and therefore I do not know if he will be use the deletion button correctly. Moving over to the block button, I see no participation at AIV, and no active work with disruptive users who would require blocks – I therefore do not know when, or when he wouldn’t block a user. This oppose for me boils down to the fact that I have no evidence he has the correct knowledge of admin tasks to perform the job well, and nothing to gauge him on. This isn’t about abuse of the tools, it’s because I believe there could be accidental misuse because of lack of experience. I’d simply like to see a lot more experience in admin areas before I could support. That all said, well done with your article work – it’s great. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm certainly not going to start oppose-badgering, but, while I appreciate an ideal admin ought to know everything, I do think it needs to be pointed out that in his answer to Q1 he's specifically said he's not looking to work in deletion/blocking — there are plenty of admin fields I have no experience in and nobody holds it against me. — iridescent 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    But these are the tools that come with the package, and the key areas the tools can be misused. I don't need to see loads of experience in these areas, but I do need to see some. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ryan, you're speaking of adminship as if it is some kind of rocket-science. He's already proven again and again he can do by far the hardest thing on wikipedia well. And even if you believe he must have opinions about every single thing he could ever do as an admin, even when he has stated he has no interest, maybe you could ask him his opinions (about, say, deletions) ... no? Is there a reason that wouldn't work for you as a mechanism for obtaining this information? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    This experience is exactly what is needed for aspiring administrators! Not FAs or GAs - knowing when to block a user or delete a page. Malleus has absolutely no experience in these two fields. I'd trust him to write a good FA, just not with the admin tools. No question I could possibly ask would make me feel comfortable switching here given the complete lack of experience in the major admin areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps Ryan, if you have a concern in this area, you could raise a question in the above section to gauge Malleus's interpretation and understanding of policy on XfDs etc? I think that might be more telling. Certainly I've seen his PRODing and discussion in in-house WikiProject debates enough to know he's a more-than-able user. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand me - I want to see some experience of admin related tasks, such as reporting to AIV, so I can judge that he knows when to block, or speedy tagging, so I know he knows when to hit delete on a page, or comments in AfD so he understands how consensus is judged in these discussion - I see nothing like that and no answer to a question could make up for that. As I said, writing an FA, or GA is one thing, being an administrator is completely different and needs different skills to article writing. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's fair enough Ryan, I don't necessarily disagree with you. My own view is slightly different, that a sensitive use of the admin tools requires that an administrator be an experienced article writer, to know what it feels like to have a piece of work taken to AfD for instance, but I fully understand your point of view as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think it's a careful mixture actually Malleus - people need both sets of skills to be an effective administrator. Admin related for day to day tasks, and article writing so they can fully evaluate content issues such as AfD debates. I'll happily support you in a couple of months if you get that experience - you're clearly excellent in your article work and people should look up to you in that respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I fully understand your pov, I simply don't share it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - 1. You need to stop assuming bad faith. 2. You need to work in some admin areas. 3. You need to stop thinking admins are a "cabal" and against you. 4. You really need to chill out and write some more excellent articles. Al Tally (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weren't you the user that was blanket-opposing admin candidates if they didn't want to be in recall? Maxim(talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Is then accountability a bad thing? While we're on the subject, would Malleus consider being open to recall? Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, but blanket opposing certainly is not a very thoughtful exercise, and not behaviour that ought to be seen in any user, admin or not. Maxim(talk) 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    It is/was his opinion though. If Malleus felt that that's his personal criteria for adminship, then I he is entitled to it. It's for others, particularly the closing bureaucrat to decide how valid it is. Certainly he's not the only user to have had strong views on WP:AOR. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    In answer to Nev1's question, yes, I most certainly would. It would be inconsistent and hypocritical to do otherwise. On a point of detail, I reject the accusation of "blanket opposing". I have made it very clear in the past that I believe it's way too difficult to have a poorly performing administrator desysoped. AOR is imperfect, but at present it's about the only mechanism we have. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Very Strong Oppose. Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project. Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ad hominem attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages. It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous. It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose. Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project. I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will". Is that a joke? Malleus fails at this spectacularly. A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution. This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Sophistry" I assume, is not meant in its original form, but in the derogatory sense of subtle deceptive or fallacious reasoning. That is the last thing I would accuse Malleus of, to be frank. He is blunt to the point of rudeness, as some would say, and that is most certainly not a feature of sophistry!  DDStretch  (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I do rather object to the "sophistry" accusation. Blunt to the point of rudeness I might be tempted to hold my hand up to on the other hand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    One can advance a fallacious argument while also being blunt to the point of rudeness. Here's an example: Wikipedia talk:FAC#Accessibility. Raul said something violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Malleus responds with a jab about keeping up with the Manual of Style. Sophistry here; Raul never mentioned the Manual of Style. Raul notes that Malleus is conflating the MOS and WIAFA, to which Malleus responds, after a couple of gratuitous insults, "when I see the FA director not only out of touch with the FA criteria, but also abusing the English language by misusing a word like "conflating" it is difficult not to comment." Of course, Raul didn't misuse the word. He meant, quite literally, that the FA criteria and MOS are not to be interpreted as a fused document. Perhaps there are two explanations to Malleus's style. One is sophistry. The other is Hanlon's razor, so I actually think I gave him the benefit of the doubt. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Majorly and Jay. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Per the above most definitely. Attitude is just not what I'd expect from a mature editor. I've seen some pretty outrageous comments made by this user, and nevermind the fact that I have absolutely no way of determining if this user is fit for adminship, as work in the project space is sorely lacking. Yes, I understand that he has already stipulated that he will avoid deletion and blocking situations, but, to be honest. No, it'll come up, it inevitably does and you'll be forced to act..and act with little to no experience. I'm sorry, too uncomfortable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - The user's had a Request for Comment only a month ago, and only last week he was accused of trolling by a bureaucrat. The current drive to promote content builders has gone too far if we're now ignoring civility and maturity issues. Epbr123 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. 'Oppose per responding to a users good faith querys by making fun of his/her spelling.[1] - Icewedge (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Was the typo intentional? --SharkfaceT/C 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since when are users not allowed to use satire? I'm sure Malleus recognised the mistake in question as an accidental typo and wasn't being malicious (not every one tpyes as perfcetly as I do). A user would have to be very thin skinned to take offence, and looking over the conversation, User:Sfan00 IMG didn't appear to take any. Do you have any more substantial objections to Malleus or his response to other user's queries? Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Jay, Wisdom, and Majorly. Jay used alot of big words I don't understand, but I agree with what he was trying to say. MF seems too rude to be fit for adminship, from what I've seen. And Majorly just hit the point spot-on. Stuff like this [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] isn't really how admins should act (IMO).--Koji†Dude (C) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I haven't been through all the diffs you've given, but I'm concerned you mark this one as an example of poor behaviour. That seems like a totally fair comment - one that was addressed to me! The others appear to be examples of critical thinking, nothing more IMO, and certainly not personal attacks and so on. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    None of them are personal attacks, they're just not professional/respectful. And the first one just seemed kind of harsh when a simple "Is there anything better?" would have sufficed. I'm not really too concerned with the first one compared to the others, it just seemed worth noting.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think you are setting the bar wayyyy too high. Seriously, if you expect any editors with experience in difficult areas of the project to work for months without being at least as sharp as the first few of those diffs, you are going to be very disappointed when you discover that all your admins have no idea how to handle the difficult parts of the project, and we rely on the really uncivil old guard. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't say they were uncivil, I said I didn't think they were how an admin should act. Sure, everybody gets sharp once in a while, but some people know where to draw the line; those are the ones that actually deserve adminship.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying that. No wonder we have a bunch of recent admins now who manage to do nothing when faced with a dispute, but manage it with wonderful politeness. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    As a person who is opposing MF for civility issues, some of the difs you've provided are not an issue at all.Balloonman (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Again: I'm not opposing because of civility issues.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, I'm opposing him for civility issues, but I found no problem with some of the difs you provided.Balloonman (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Regretful Oppose -- Per maturity concerns. Sorry dude. --SharkfaceT/C 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    No worries. At least your oppose made me smile. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose Apparantly civility is now more important in an admin than good judgement and on that basis alone this candidate is going to struggle. That alone wouldn't be enough for me to oppose but I echo Ryan's concern that this candidate simply hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of admin activity. I looked through their last 1000 wikipedia area edits and didn't see any significant edits that would have indicated any experience in tool related policy. As such I simply can't judge if there is sufficent knowledge/judgement in admin type areas to support. I did consider Pedro's support carefully as he made some very valid points. Spartaz Humbug! 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose after seeing the diffs above. Jack?! 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I saw MF's recent interaction with Raul at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates and honestly, whatever the source of their disagreement, I thought the insulting manner that MF used was utterly inappropriate. Admins should not deal with respected users like this. If he feels free to insult Raul like this, how will he deal with new editors as an admin? He can't be trusted with the tools. Gwernol 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    It is logically incorrect to imply that a sharp tone in a dispute with a "respected user" will mean he is more likely to be sharp with a newbie. In fact, it is frequently the other way 'round. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, sorry. Pretty much per Ryan and Majorly, but I also recall finding this user rather uncivil in the recent past. Húsönd 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose My opinion of M.F. has improved significantly over the past month. M.F. is a well respected editor, one of the best from what I've seen. He has the respect of a lot of people whom I respect, so in reviewing him, I wanted to be able to support---despite some person animosity a few months ago. I was hoping that my encounter with him was the exception and that he didn't have a problem with civility. Unfortunately, I found that he repeatedly gets into conflict--and civility is a cornerstone of a good admin. About two months ago he made some inappropriate comments on an RfA. When he was challenged, part of his response was, I suspect that you may be mistaking me for someone who gives a monkeys what you believe. Agreeing with the person who chastised him, I approached him on his talk page. Again, his response was, I'm uncertain why you believe that I have even the slightest interest in your beliefs. I then responded with I came here for one purpose and one purpose only to mention that your behavior was inappropriate. I had no desire to turn it into an official "warning." But your response basically left me with no choice... instead of being civil, you decided to be rude and continued being rude after I stopped posting. Unfortunately, I found a case where he accused another admin who came to warn him of civility of harrassment. I seriously don't give a monkeys what you think, and I would request that you cease your campaign of harrassment forthwith. And then there was this charming exchange with Pedro, I made it plain to you what I thought of your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to accept that you had been mistaken in your POV accusation/opposition, and for me the matter was then closed. But apparently not for you. If you continue to find yourself unable to conduct yourself as an administrator should, then I would suggest that you ought to seriously consider whether you are fit to be an administrator. The discourse went down here from there. Or later There is no point in disagreeing with Pedro. Pedro is always right, even when he's wrong. Now, I will grant that he and Pedro have since made ammends, but one shouldn't have to work through this animosity to get to civility. Then there is Rudget's exchange with MF User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum/Archives/2008/February#Civility_issues. Or how about Epbr123 approach: I think it's time for yet another truce. I do have a soft spot for you, Malleus, as I've known you for quite a while, but I just can't stand to see your bitterness and aggressiveness to other users. I know it's due to you being a very sensitive person, but you need to realise that it only makes things worse for yourself. There are plenty of other cases where his civility has been questioned. I REALLY wish I could support because M.F. is a phenomenal editor and asset to the community, but I can't. I spent the last 2 hours reviewing his edits trying to find reason to support... I was hoping to find that I was wrong.Balloonman (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose It looks like you've done some great article work, and the lack of experience in "admin areas" doesn't concern me as much as it seems to concern some other editors; my personal view is that admins aren't required to use all of their tools in every area of the encyclopedia, and should not be required to show expertise in every area if they show the knowledge and maturity to know what decisions they are and aren't capable of making. However, many of the past issues of incivility presented above concern me - I do believe that admins should be required to be calm, mature, and civil - representatives of how wikipedians should act towards one another. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the maturity or civility needed here to be trusted with the mop. It pains me to oppose given your excellent contributions to articles here, but I feel I must. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose You have done some good content writing. However, one can do good content writing without the sysop bit. -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Stop me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but isn't your argument basically "he's getting on fine without the tools so doesn't need them"? Surely the question isn't "does he need the tools" (nobody needs them), the question is "will Malleus' use of the tools benefit the project"? Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are some admin tools, such as the ability to delete edited redirects, that are pretty important for a prolific content contributor. Certainly for me, as I edit hundreds of articles that almost no-one watches, this is indispensable. Anyways, not really the point, as Nev said. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    That is almost what I'm saying. There are plenty of editors whos application of the tools would benefit the project, but I don't see why he is any different from the dozens of others editors who are quite able to complete the same tasks without adminship. -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. As per JayHenry, Maxim and Majorly/Al Tally. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I've seen your article work and I have been impressed. I was originally planning on supporting this, but some of the diffs that KojiDude and Balloonman were able to find were examples of ways an admin shouldn't act (some of their provided diffs weren't bad, but some were just disrespectful, particularly this one). On top of those, you said here that you don't see a reason to "improve your civility" and that you wouldn't use the admin tools anyway. Sorry. Useight (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. EEEK! An admin with an attitude! Not a good combination. It's analagous to giving a pyromaniac a flamethrower and some dry leaves. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - Civility, English isnt my first language and i can say from experience that its very hurtful when someone makes fun of your spelling like that. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose. The respect I have for some of the supporters gives me some pause here, but it is only temporary. Putting aside what Pedro wants to describe as personal "miffs", and even putting aside Malleus Fatuarum's "miffs" with other established users, how can we put aside the manner in which he responds to the less established users with malice? Such has never been, and never will be, appropriate for an administrator. I also do not sense a strong need for the tools, especially for someone that has so vehemently put down this process while making the issue more divisive within the community. Nor do I sense the experience to use them correctly if granted. Simply put, this would be a mistake. SorryGuy  Talk  00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, you're right about everything. The only thing is, we are not here to judge whether Malleus Fatuarum 2 has any need for these tools. We are here to judge whether he deserves these tools, and if having these tools will benefit the Wikipedia community. And it's not just you. Many people have said the same thing. But it's just not ours to judge. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just a comment here, but, clearly nobody deserves the tools. They aren't a reward for outstanding editing or any such thing. You're right about sysoping needing to be seen as a net benefit to the project though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Adminship isn't a doggy treat people get for playing a good round of fetch. You're thinking of Barnstars.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    You misunderstood me. I didn't mean "deserve" in the sense of "exemplary editing". I meant it in the sense of has he been good enough, civilly and otherwise, to warrant giving him extra tools. Basically, has Malleus been a good boy? (Basically). BTW, I know that adminship isn't a "doggy treat". That's why I don't want to be one. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Whether someone has been a good boy or not, the question is will they be of service or benefit to the project with tools that often draw them into conflict, often make them the butt end of intense criticism from people defending The Truth, and so on? A personable demeanour, some level of negotiation skills, an ability to explain oneself, etc, are essential to doing this in a way good editing by itself doesn't explain. I can think of half a dozen situations I've been in as an admin which have really tested me and so at the back of my mind is "How would this candidate have handled those?" If the result would be a major conflict, several aggrieved parties and an ArbCom case, I think, "no." The PS62 and Tango cases, both of which stripped the titled party of their adminship, are the thin end of this particular wedge - it does happen, and seems to be happening more frequently when admins fail to meet community expectations of behaviour. Orderinchaos 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Strong Oppose Two months ago I met this user while he was indulging in rather pointy behaviour at Sceptre's last RfA. Both there and in my subsequent dealings with him on his talk page I found him to be singularly hostile and incivil - including a false claim of harassment after my first communication with him simply because I attempted to raise an issue, and this gem after my reply to the previous: I seriously don't give a monkeys what you think [10]. I have not dealt with them since, but have seen them in action in similarly regrettable fashion elsewhere. Despite this user's strong content contributions I believe this user having the tools would be a net deficit to the project. I oppose with some sadness as I personally would like to see more content-strong admins, and also because I hold two of the nominators in considerable respect (I am unfamiliar with the other). Orderinchaos 02:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. JayHenry says everything I would've said. Sorry mate. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. No, and probably never. Unless I saw a dramatic transformation in attitude change all-around, I don't see how my mind could change. He simply isn't suitable and I don't think he will be barring a complete makeover. Mike H. Fierce! 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per Epbr, Orderinchaos and Balloonman. Recent RfC, blanket opposes, and rampant assumptions of bad faith combined with a pretty nasty attitude is a no in my book. GlassCobra 06:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Per JayHenry. —Dark talk 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per JayHenry, Epbr123, Icewedge, KojiDude and others. The candidate doesn't have enough experience and has civility problems. Cwb61 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, my past interactions with this user have not been pleasant. Malleus can be rude, abrasive, and uncivil. What's more, he apparently doesn't see any problems with violating WP:CIVIL whenever he deems necessary. I acknowledge his fine work in the project space, but his temperament makes him unsuitable for the tools. If he can chill out and conduct himself with some more decorum in the future, I'll be happy to support him down the track, however. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
  29. No. The candidate's behavior on this very page, while recently improved, has in the past bordered up on appalling. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Still oppose, but would like to amend to say I have seen improvement and would not be averse to reconsidering a later request. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Per Balloonman & Orderinchaos. Abrasive at best. Five Years 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Regretful oppose: Content-building and in-the-trenches experience are huge plusses for any admin candidate, and MF has them both. But the problem is this: admins need a thick skin. It's indispensible. Especially in the current climate, admins are expected to absorb abuse without losing their cool. There's currently a willingness to extend 6th or 7th chances to problem editors while pouncing on an admin's every mistake, uncivil remark, etc. I'd like for that to change, but it is what it is. If an editor has trouble staying cool at baseline, the problem is going to be a hundred times worse when they become an admin and get a big target painted on their back. It's unfortunate, but I really think that adminning MF would not be doing him a favor; it would lead to (or accelerate) a process of embitterment and burnout that seems to be a common pattern hereabouts. My 2 cents, anyway. Keep up the good work. MastCell Talk 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think you make a good point, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Serious attitude problems have been brought to light and pointed out above. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    They certainly have, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Strong oppose - Per serious maturity/attitude problems. asenine say what? 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  34. Oppose per an apparent necessity to have the last word in every discussion, even when additional commentary is not necessary. Some of the responses that the candidate has offered to various votes in this RfA raise maturity concerns, in my mind. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think that's a little bit strong. Certainly there's no way Malleus is willing or able to have "the last word in every discussion" (!). Have you worked with this user before? What bredth of evidence have you based this opposition on, if you please? Necessity of discussion and voicing opinion is a personal preference and point of view and not against any aspect of the spirit of WP:ADMIN. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps the word "every" was a bit strong, but look at the number of votes that candidate has responded to on this page... how often do you see that? How often is that actually necessary? That is a red flag, for me, on top of just getting a very uneasy feeling, for some reason. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Uh... He's replied to six out of the 83 comments on the page. That's not exactly chatroom levels. — iridescent 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Six? Did you mean fifteen? That aside, as I said, I just get an uneasy feeling about this candidate. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  35. Oppose per incivility concerns raised above. Rami R 09:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  36. Oppose per ryan. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  37. Oppose for failing to review the situation before accusing me of trying to speedily close this RfA, when in reality I was attempting to isolate and remove vandalism that resulted in WP:RFA being invisible. An administrator should be able to review a situation and comprehend the status of things before going to bother others. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. A quick review of talk contributions and history indicates incivility problems. Celarnor Talk to me 05:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  39. Regretful oppose - MastCell summed it up best: while I have great respect for this candidate's contributions to the project, admins are required to take a lot of abuse whilst living under a microscope. Rather than risk burning MF out in the meat-grinder that is adminship, I would much rather see him continue his excellent working in building content. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  40. Oppose - Malleus exhibits exactly the opposite interpersonal behavior that is required of an admin. What's more, he flatly refuses to recognize minor changes that would make him an exceptional candidate. His thread in the neutral section below with Dan is particularly disturbing. In particular his boast of not suffering fools... the very concept is entirely subjective, and though he seems to be throwing it around for dramatic impact, it displays a rash, immature approach to other editors that would not be suitable. Not only must an admin suffer fools, but also, an admin must contantly question whether or not they are themself the fool. That this debate is transpiring in his actual RfA, rather than off the cuff at some distant, more irrelevant point in the past leads me to oppose. I would say that I would support in the future, but as Malleus has already strongly indicated no reason to grow or change, then I see no reason to reconsider him in the future. He is what he is, and is proud of it. To that end, let him continue to be the valuable and strong contributor that he currently is. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Too much inexperience in admin-related areas makes me unwilling to support. Sorry! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I have had many good experiences with this user. He or she is enthusiastic and believes strongly in the project, and is working hard to improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand, he or she rather easily becomes frustrated, and has a tendency to "flounce" (for want of a better word). I can seek out diffs for those interested, but I'm thinking for instance of a series of declarations that the user would leave the GA project. WP can be a source of frustration for many reasons; I think admins should be people who can help cool things down rather than stir things up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I sympathise with this, but I believe that a lot of these frustrations are caused by mutual communication problems. Malleus speaks his mind, and other users frequently interpret his comments as being assumptions of bad faith when that is not intended. (Assume good faith also implies assuming others are assuming good faith.) It is in the nature of the north of England to be blunt and straightforward, and Malleus in turn can sometimes respond to this misunderstanding with frustration. It is in that same culture to express one's feelings in concrete terms ("I'm quitting GA") even when one knows that such a decision should only be made after further reflection. I've argued and disagreed with Malleus on several occasions, but he is not immature, and any editor who suggests so should reflect upon their communication skills too, both in their understanding of other editors, and their expression of their opinion.
    In my view Malleus is a clear net positive for the encyclopedia, which is not completely obvious for all of our current admins. Since the last RfA he has adapted considerably to Wikipedia norms, despite having no expressed desire to repeat the RfA process, and I'm sad to see so many opposes seemingly based on old history and misunderstanding. There are legitimate issues to be raised, but they should be raised in such a way that they can be addressed with civility. Geometry guy 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Heh. FWIW, I'm happy to "come out" as a Mancunian myself.  :) I have no problem with someone speaking their mind. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    You're Mancunian and not part of WP:GM?!? That's criminal... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Heh. I'm in exile, if in a place almost as famous for its raininess. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral -- I see this user around quite a bit and his/her work is always positive, however there are some big issues (as raised above)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I can't support at this time as I do see civility issues being a major hurdle. But if he can get both Pedro and Rudget to support him after his blowouts with them... Like I said, he is a hell of an asset to the project. If only he wasn't such an MF sometimes ;-) One of my unofficial criteria for support is, "will I ever regret giving this person the tools?" Unfortunately, while I think know he will generally try to use them positively, civility concerns make it impossible for me to say, "I won't regret it."Balloonman (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that I come as a package, some good, some not so good. Hopefully more good than bad though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Proposing a compromise, because that's what needs doing. Many Wikipedians, including myself, including Malleus, have flaws. Some of the Opposes are getting it wrong; Malleus is not by nature incivil or childish. He cares more about the quality of articles on Wikipedia than many other Wikipedians, and he is lacking a few of the skills common in Wikipedian admins. This is not a character flaw; this is a matter of learning how to choose words correctly (or alternatively, learning how to do without the mop :). Skills can be learned. I'd like to propose a compromise: will the community be willing to look at another RfA for Malleus soon, if Malleus will accept a little schoolin'? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    The answer for myself, and probably most of the opposition, would be yes. I would suggest taking a look over at Mall's talk page for discussion regarding this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I appreciate that you mean well with your suggested compromise, and I thank you for thinking of it. The larger question though is not whether the community would be willing to accept it, it's whether I would. And the answer, I'm afraid, is a resounding "No". I have absolutely no intention of being "schooled" into yet another wikiclone at any price. Thanks all the same though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    That might answer my question then...but only if you understand what I'm saying. Sometimes you use words that don't help the situation, but I've seen the quality of your work, and I don't jump to the conclusion that this means there's something wrong with you that needs fixing; I'm pretty sure that you're simply not a "perfect fit" as an admin, which is why I'm using the word "compromise", a word that I have never used before in an RfA. I feel a certain connection to where admins are coming from, and I believe that some of them would have to bend just a bit to be okay with this nomination, and I feel a definite connection to your devotion to certain ideals, and completely understand that you might not want to bend at all. But if your position is, "No, never, all my words are just fine", then, putting my RfA hat on, I can't see you as a good fit; it would be a disservice both to the admin community and to you to try to force it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I can see no more reason that I would be inclined to believe that "All my words are just fine", any more than you, or anyone else, would believe that about themselves. If I am considered unfit to be an administrator, for whatever real or imaged reasons, it won't kill me and I'll just move on. What I will not do is agree to jump through some arbitrary wikihoops in an effort to satisfy a numnber of opposers who would likely not be satisfied no matter what I did. I am quite content to live without the proverbial mop if that's the way it goes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll take one more stab at it, and then let it go. When you say "opposers who would likely not be satisfied no matter what I did", yes, not compromising is the usual approach, and it works well. It's wise not to try to change people or beat them over the head...generally. All I'm saying is that, in your case, I think a couple of lumps on the noggin might be beneficial. This would also be a good opportunity for you to score some points: wouldn't it be nice to bend a little yourself, and thereby shame some of the opposers who don't normally bend into also giving ground?
    Also, I was being euphemistic regarding "all my words"; I didn't mean your words were less than perfect, I meant they were less than less than perfect, and might sometimes contribute to Wikipedia's "insularity". That is, it's okay to be tough and uncompromising if you're in a platoon and no one is going anywhere, but when we rely on the kindness of strangers, rough words can make a difference. On the one hand, I don't think there's the slightest chance that you would abuse the admin tools; on the other hand, I often solicit non-Wikipedian content experts (unsuccessfully) to help us create articles, and if I'm ever successful, I don't want admins looking over their shoulders who have no embarrassment at all about speaking their minds, because this would frighten some of them off, and therefore hurt the encyclopedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I believe that I do understand what you're saying, and I thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to say it so carefully. I understand your concerns, and I might even share them myself if I were in your position. The only point I'll make in my defence is that no matter how far back you look through my contribution history I doubt that you would find even a single occasion where I have bitten a newbie editor, so I think your hypothetical example is a little below the belt if I may so. I will fully admit to not always having treated more established, long-standing editors with the same kid gloves, but that is largely due to the fact that I don't suffer fools gladly and I don't shy away from confrontation. So if it's all the same to you, I'm still going to decline your generous offer of a couple of lumps on the noggin. I have to admit that I was reminded of Clockwork Orange when I saw it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, see, we're off on the right foot already; you take criticism gracefully. We're talking past each other just a bit. Over the next couple of months, if I see an example of what I'm talking about, I'll let you know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please feel free to let me know whenever you think I've behaved unreasonably. I've still got absolutely no intention of going through wikitherapy whatever happens with this RfA though. I really will be quite content not to be an administrator. I'm sure you understand, or at least I hope that you do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to lean my vote more towards opposing, for now, and explain why, especially to Malleus. I thank Iridescent and Keeper for thinking about this carefully, and I agree with their decision to nominate. Malleus and I are agreed that he doesn't bite newbies, and that he is usually careful, and that he is way more of an asset than a liability. My first reaction on seeing Malleus's off-the-cuff and gruff replies was that Malleus was just being a little sloppy and needed to pick up some skills, but now I'm having a different reaction: I think Malleus has "issues", which is no big deal, and impossible to define, and commonplace among people who care a lot about WP, and maybe not even his fault. Nevertheless, the "pyromaniac" comment above nails it: if someone's angst seems to be spilling onto the page, the last thing you want to do is give them more power, that just means more mess to clean up. We're all human and we all go through these phases, and I'll take Malleus up on his offer to point out problems as they arise. This seems like a fluid situation to me; I think we're talking about conflict, not a character flaw. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see any "pyromaniac" comment above, but nevertheless I'd encourage you to vote whichever you please; my feelings won't be hurt one way or the other. I think it's only fair to warn you though, that I may not always agree with your interpretation of the "problems" that you have kindly offered to point out to me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's was Kodster's comment, and understood. I'm betting that in time, we will get a meeting of the minds. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I think Malleus would be a good admin, but needs to develop the political skills to cope with the take-no-prisoners environment that has come to prevail here. Whether Malleus wants to develop such skills is up to him. I have a lot of respect for people who take a WYSIWYG approach, more than those who say "oh yes, please, I'll do anything if you make me an admin!" Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral I believe this candidate has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but I can not offer my support at this time due to a lack of experience around some of the typical administrative areas. If, say six months from now, this candidate were to come up again and they've shown more participation around those areas, I'd feel much more comfortable offering a support vote. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    As I said above, I am quite content not being an administrator, and I have absolutely no intention of racking up edits in areas that I have little interest in just to pass an RfA. In point of fact, ... ah well, I'd better say no more. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I've had some good experiences with this user, but the concerns left by the oppose section leave me leery. SpencerT♦C 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    If I believed even half of them, they'd leave me leery as well. I might even find myself in the Oppose section before the week's out. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is too funny, I didn't realize that MF was responding to Spencer and thought that MF was !voting neutral on his ow RfA Balloonman (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, I'll more than likely be voting Oppose before the week's out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral: Good contributor. But I have real concerns on reading the oppose arguments by many people -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:03, 21 May 2008 (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.