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

Final (61/37/6); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) - This is his third RfA. The first (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist) was a year ago. TT (if I may call him that) made the mistake of nominating himself shortly after "losing" a mildly heated MfD debate. Some users were also concerned about TT's self-stated desire to become an admin.

Six months later (and therefore six months ago) I was one of several editors who nominated TT once more. This time (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2), there were some lingering worries about the MfD, criticism of a weak answer to Q1 (why do you want the tools?) and a conflict that TT had disclosed in Q3 that he'd handled badly, back in the Spring of 2006.

So, why am I renominating such a seemingly flawed candidate? Well, I could tell you that The Transhumanist is an able, helpful Wikipedian, who invests a lot of time in the Project. But let's cut to the bottom-line RfA issues, which IMHO for TT boil down to civility/keeping cool and need for the tools.

I tested TT's civility to the limit recently. I fiercely (well, about as fiercely as I do anything round here) and steadfastly opposed a pet project of TT's at WP:FLC. I submit Exhibit C. I think it's worth reading. When you're done with that, please examine this litle exchange. This blew me away and made me ready to accept that TT has learned some lessons and can debate with force, but in the right spirit.

The need for the tools is easier to explain. I simply asked him here. I presume that by the time you read these words, he's given an equally good answer here too.

So that's TT. A flawed background, but one which I believe he's learned from. And, despite the scars of two failed RfAs and the personal criticism they entailed, he's prepared to go through it all again. Well, I trust him with the tools. Do you? Dweller 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel like I've just been shot.  :-) In the heart. So, with my right hand placed over this gaping chest wound, I solemnly swear to uphold the policies of Wikipedia, maintain its spirit, and defend it with my life. With nervous anticipation, I accept...

>passes out<

The Transhumanist 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very important navigation subsystem under development at Portal talk:Contents. We are designing subject-based contents pages to replace the portal links on the main page! Your feedback is greatly needed. Please come and take a look. -TT

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: Dweller has already asked me this. Please see my answers on my talk page here. For archival purposes, here's a permanent link.

Per JodyB's suggestion, here is a copy of my responses to Dweller:

Editing protected pages would be useful. The first thing I would do as an admin would be remove class="MainPageBG" from the Main page, because it may confuse editors studying the main page's markup, because that class does not exist. It's code cruft leftover from a bygone age. I would of course check the class again before removing it, to be sure it hasn't been repurposed.

There's also a formatting error on the Main page just above "Today's featured picture", where that section overlaps the bottom border of the section appearing above it. I would fix that too. Wikignome stuff.

I would be able to handle administrative maintenance issues directly and silently rather than find roundabout solutions. For example, editors requesting access to WP:AWB often had to wait several days before being approved because there wasn't an admin dedicated to monitoring and maintaining AWB's check page. So I placed an instruction on the page for editors to report to WP:AN if any request for approval aged over 24 hours, essentially delegating the chore to existing admins. If I was an admin, I would have simply filled the maintenance niche myself.

I do a lot of coaching, including admin coaching. I am proud to have coached and co-nominated The Rambling Man, AGK, and Dweller for adminship. Being an admin myself would enable me to convey a more complete perspective to my students.

If I were an admin, other administrators could contact me to assist with problems too big for them to handle by themselves. Also, I'm logged-in a lot, so the chances are high that I would be available should an emergency arise.

Browsing deleted pages would be useful for making proposals to Deletion Review. For example, many lists have been deleted due to an inappropriate conflict between categories and lists, and due to misinterpretation of the guideline "Avoid self-references" (which I've recently renamed to "Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid"). Guidelines concerning the purposes of lists have changed, and many list deletions no longer reflect this and should be reviewed. To reduce bandwidth (i.e., save reviewers' time), I would make proposals of batches of pages that share the same characteristics.

I move a lot of pages. I frequently come across pages that I'd move but can't; moves with a small problem that would otherwise be routine. Like pages that can't be moved because there is a redirect in the way which has more than one edit or which points somewhere else. Also, I occasionally find a category page that needs renaming, and I used to move these myself, but now adminship is required to do so.

Is that what you were looking for? The Transhumanist 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Well, I just passed the 30,000 edit mark (including my previous accounts). Throughout most of those edits, I've tried to systematically build the structures for helping users find what they need. What good is information if you can't find it? I've dedicated most of my time here working on Wikipedia's contents and help systems. My contributions are summarized on my user page.

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: Dweller covered this pretty well above. I've learned that most conflicts are communication problems - misunderstandings that can be clarified and resolved with continued conversation and effort. [1] I've made the stereotypical progression from competitive and adversarial to cooperative and consensus-minded. I think that I can safely say, that I've been wikified. These days when I'm in the wrong, I own up to my errors, apologize, and offer to help. [2] [3]

Optional questions from Dekimasu:

4. Is there currently a rough consensus as to what namespace lists of lists should be in? Should the featured status of a list prevent it from being moved to a different namespace?

A: No. There is no consensus at this time. The sticking point is whether or not search functionality will be lost to lists if they are moved. In the main namespace, they show up in default searches. In portal space, they do not. I believe that a list's featured status should be independent of which namespace it is in. The page Lists of mathematics topics should not lose its featured list status if it becomes a subpage of the math portal, for instance. 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

5. When is it appropriate for an administrator to reverse the actions of another administrator?

A: Normal edits by an administrator can be reversed normally, just like with any editor. To reverse administrator actions, like a block, I would contact the admin on his or her talk page, to discuss the possibility of having him or her remove the block. 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from EncycloPetey:

6. You seem to edit many lists of basic topics over a broad range of topics. In particular, I noticed this set of edits. Would you do anything differently if you edited that same list today?

A: Yes. To help write accurate edit summaries, for complex edits I generally check show changes. The edit summary in this case should have read "added links, removed Mary Pagan and Training". Thank you for pointing that out to me. 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

additional answer: the page is incomplete. I've just added "weight loss", but it needs still more links. I have two approaches with respect to basic topic lists. One is to focus on a single list, study its subject, and add links as I find them. The other is to add links I come across to whatever list they belong to. I've recently created 68 new (empty) basic topic lists as subpages of my user page, and have posted links to them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics so that others can comment or join in and help. 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

7. I see many edits made to lists of basic topics, but few edits to WikiProject talk pages in related subjects. How does your personal edit philosophy reconcile this?

A: ::A: I don't think of it in those terms. I feel that there are as many styles and approaches as there are Wikipedians. My time is usually divided up between dozens of lists, one or two development projects (currently Portal talk:Contents, which coordinates the design of the set of contents pages that appear on the Template:Contents pages (header bar), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics), and writing one or two articles (or wikignoming many more). Between those, the students I'm coaching, and answering posts and requests on my talk page, I don't have any time left. I've worked on hundreds of lists on hundreds of topics. I gladly work with anyone who shows up at the lists, but I couldn't imagine participating in hundreds of WikiProjects, so instead I've posted a banner to the talk page of every WikiProject corresponding to the subject of a list of basic topics, and to the talk page of every topic corresponding to a basic list, telling them about the list.

If I become an admin, my routine will probably change drastically, based on advice from friendly admins. :) 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from The Placebo Effect

8. How do you interpret Ignore all rules? In what possible circumstances do you think it be acceptable to cite IAR when using an Sysop tool?

A: IAR is more of a directive to find a sensible solution rather than a policy to be cited in specific situations. Despite its name, IAR wouldn't apply to all rules if it were used as the basis for a specific action - it would apply to one or a few specific rules and making an exception to just those. In such cases, you would want to focus on the reasons for the exception rather than cite a general directive. Exceptions should be discussed. I might mention IAR in discussions as a philosophical reference in seeking a consensus on a possible solution, but would never cite it as the basis for a sysop action. The policies and guidelines covering admin actions include enough room for discretion that one would never need to resort to using IAR as a reason. That would be like trying to use a blanket to drive a nail, instead of a hammer. 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

9. If this RfA is successful, would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?

A: Of course. 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pedro

10. Upon deleting a totally non notable garage band's attempt at getting an entry into Wikipedia, (the entry consisting entirely of the idea that they'll be big in 2008, and a link to their Myspace "official site"), the article creator decides your user page would look better off it it just said "The Transhumanist is a gay ------". These are the editors only contributions. Block or no block? Why? Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: No block. First instance. Blocks are typically used in cases of persistent vandalism. I'd post a warning. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE. 02:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

11.Transhumanists are sometimes criticized in regards to the perception that they want to "play God". Do you think this is applicable to yourself, inside or outside of Wikipedia? Why or why not? Keepscases 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Sorry this took so long, I rewrote it three times.  :-) As a transhumanist, I value the tenets of humanism, plus. Human rights are the foundation of humanism. I discovered humanism while studying the life of Albert Einstein (he was a humanist), and figured it was worth taking a look. I was instantly hooked. Humanists basically want peace, and to improve the common welfare of the human race. My contribution to the common welfare is my involvement in Wikipedia. The "plus" is that I'm a life extensionist; that is, I apply technology to slow or reverse aging processes and extend my own life. For example, among other things, I take Vitamin C four times per day for its bio-preservative anti-oxidant properties (its half-life in water is only about 5 hours, and therefore it needs to be replenished often if you want continuous protection against free radical processes of aging). If others don't want to take their vitamins, that is up to them. I'm also in favor of developing further technologies that improve or extend life (vitamin research, artificial heart research, etc.), and I believe that everyone has the right to refuse treatment. If you need a heart transplant, but don't want one, you have the right not to go through with the operation. I'm in favor of doctors. Do doctors play God? I don't know. But they save lives, and that's good. The Transhumanist 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Optional Question from The Placebo Effect

12. In your answer to Question 1, you said "Editing protected pages would be useful." Could you be more specific in what you mean by this? Do you just mean the Main Page or specific types of protected pages?

A: For example, if I came across a page that was protected, that had a spelling error on it, or poor grammar, or a border with no padding, it would be nice to be able to fix it myself rather than have to tap on the shoulder of another admin to do so. 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

additional comment - This would save a step. The time and effort of communications between myself and the admins I would have contacted to fix the problems. Each time freeing up two people to use their time elsewhere on Wikipedia, who would otherwise be engaged in posting messages about it. 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question re: What you learned and improvements

13. What have you learned from earlier criticism, and do you have examples (with links) for when you applied that? — Sebastian 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:: Pending research - examples with links will take some time to find (I have over 30,000 edits). Hopefully tomorrow sometime. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the criticism I've received over the past year has been in my 3 RfAs. It goes - massive criticism at RfA - 6 months of relative calm - massive criticism at RfA - 6 months of relative calm - massive criticism at RfA. I don't even understand much of the criticism presented, because it is extremely vague. For example, how do you correct "overly formal" if you don't know what formal acts the objector is talking about? So the main thing I learned from the criticisms presented in my previous RfA, and this one, is to try and get criticism clarified. And so I have been doing this, right on this page.

I've learned some other things from the criticism posted in my RfAs:

1. Don't try to reform the WP:RfA process in the middle of your RfA. :-) I tried that last time. I've refrained from doing so this time around.
2. RfA is usually off-topic at RfA's. Your RfA is about you, your actions, and your qualifications. Answering questions, such as Question 13 about criticism, is a good example of an exception.
3. RfAs are recursive. Your communications in your RfA will be judged on how admin-like it is. Since the rules seem like they are rescinded at RfA, with respect to personal attacks, etc. (against the candidate), it is easy to get hotly argumentative when you are being mercilessly criticised. But it's not adminly to fight back. No matter how the opposers treat you, it's important to remain civil and uncontentious. Don't fight, respond. It's a discussion, not a battle, even if one side seems like it is attacking.
4. "Optional" questions are actually mandatory. Unanswered questions, or even delayed answers to them, can be the basis for objections. Answer them as fast as you can. Or put a little note on those you can't get to right away, explaining why, with an estimated time by which you are pretty sure you can answer them (in UTC time).
5. Some opposes seem like rhetoric. Catch-22's like "he wants adminship and therefore shouldn't have it (but you have to want it to accept a nom)" you simply have to forebear. Point out the paradox and move on.
6. Some opposes are innappropriate. For example, opposes about replying to opposes. Reaching consensus requires discussion. Anything that interferes with peaceful discussion between Wikipedians-in-good-standing violates WP:CONSENSUS. I would forebear such opposes, and would briefly explain why it was inappropriate.
7. Some opposes are untrue, even though the opposers who made them believe their statements and answered in good faith. Some people may tell you that you haven't improved, when actually you have. The community consensus will bear this out over time. RfA is itself a record of improvement. If you do better each time, that shows you are improving.
8. RfAs can be stressful. But by your 3rd one, you may be totally desensitized to the stress.  :-) So don't fret it if you don't make it. It's good training.
9. Any unaddressed issue may resurface again and again. A frequent reason given for opposition is that previous concerns haven't been addressed. I shall do my best to address them by finding out what they mean, deciding what should be done about them, and then implementing the decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Quiddity

14. You stated recently that "Complaints just seem adversarial to me." How will deal with complaints in the future (which as an admin, will likely increase in frequency and in unfairness and in complexity), that differs from the way you have previously? -- Quiddity (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've dealt with them in the past has been on a case-by-case basis, learning from my mistakes and from the experiences of others, and applying that knowledge to improve my ability to handle cases. This seems to have worked pretty well so far. I would continue to apply that general approach. I hope you would agree that my wiki-problem-solving skills keep improving over time. If I were to become an admin, it looks like I would be getting a lot more practice in solving problems.  :-) The most important things I have learned so far about dealing with others, especially those who may be upset, is to be kind, be patient, and think twice before sending scathing messages. Sometimes one slips through, but nobody's perfect. In those cases, I'm prepared to swallow my pride and apologize. Moving things forward to find a solution, and improving as I go, are my goals. The Transhumanist 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. 3 months ago, you were engaged in some edit-warring with a number of editors and admins, at Wikipedia:Lists. (See history and talk thread, from October till early November, particularly Oct 5,6,7th). Now, I realize you've been trying to ask-first a lot more lately (e.g., e.g.2); but,
Q. Will you be just as inclined to engage in boldness like this, once you have the admin-bit, or are you going to change into a more cautious editor in response to the power&responsibility these tools and !respect bring? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: The "war" consisted of a series of 2 reversions apiece between Jossi and myself (i.e., consecutive). This was accompanied by discussion, and was followed by healthy interactive editing where after being reverted, you try something different, it is modified, so you modify the modifications, there's an occasional revert and a series of edits, you change a few things, and it goes back and forth like that. Most of the communication is in the edit summaries. The key is to try to accomodate the reasons given in the edit summaries, while adapting the text to meet both sides' objectives. The other side does the same. A page can be refined via consensus very rapidly in this fashion. I prefer this interactive approach for copy-editing, as it is much faster than discussions on the talk page -- you see directly what the other person wants in-context on the page accompanied by an explanation in the edit summary (the benefits are similar to "a picture is worth a thousand words"). The talk page is best used for impasses (when you have to revert a revert because the other side won't leapfrog), discussing draft proposals, discussing project direction, and posting ideas that aren't fully formed or that you can't anticipate the community's response to.

The part of this approach that I would change, based upon your feedback, would be my edit summaries. I'd try to drop or de-emphasize all non-reasons, like "this was never discussed" and "this was changed without consensus." Those usually don't help much. I think actual reasons would be better, because that's what accomodates interactive leapfrogging. The other side can't adapt the text if they don't know what you are thinking - so explain why. If it can't fit in the edit summary, then post the reason on the talk page and refer to it in the edit summary. The Transhumanist (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This approach might not work in every situation, especially when temperatures running too high for interactive editing to take place, or someone is being obstinant, or you feel you must defend against a change that makes no sense, etc. In those cases, I tend to rely on the talk page more. The Transhumanist (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to 3 or 4 reversions. You deleted, were reverted, deleted, reverted, altered, reverted (and then jossi started a talk thread), deleted (with an accusational edit summary), reverted, and then more regular editing resumed. My main issue is that you ignored the 1st two requests to take it to talk. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dweller

16. Hi. Generalising some other peoples' opinions (sorry - I've already run into trouble doing that, please bear with me) you've been criticised below for your attitude toward gaining adminship. How will you respond if this RfA fails? --Dweller 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing that I'll do if I'm approved: help RichardF on the Subject contents pages project that he has started, and when they are ready, assist in preparing a mock up and proposal to replace the portal links on the Main page with links to the subject contents pages. You are all invited. Here's what the subject-based contents page design looks like at the moment. The links to the rest of them are at the bottom of that page. The Transhumanist (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional from Marlith

17.What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith ^T/C 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: The first-stop for knowledge by everyone in the world (who has access to the Internet), regardless of subject. It may take longer than 3-years, but that's what I'd like to see. 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional from Spebi

18. Any particular reason why the following quote appears right after your acceptance statement? There's a very important navigation subsystem under development at Portal talk:Contents. We are designing subject-based contents pages to replace the portal links on the main page! Your feedback is greatly needed. Please come and take a look. -TT

A: It's the most important thing I'm working on. Not a shameless plug for a project that needs volunteers, honest.  :-) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Od Mishehu

19. Why do you have so many accounts? Are there any others which you didn't bother mentioning? Od Mishehu 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Trial and error. My initial name (Go for it!) was awkward, so I ditched it and started looking for another. I finally found the right name for me. Do you like it?  :-) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from --SB_Johnny | ^talk

20 I realize that under the present circumstances you obviously shouldn't intervene in this case, but if it weren't your RfA, how would you interpret WP:CIVIL in regards to the small debates appearing under some of the oppose votes (especially "Oppose #10")? In my experience, it's very difficult to deal with incivility in a civil manner, so please take this question more as an opportunity to think out loud rather than "get right". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'll give it a try, below. Let me know what you think. The Transhumanist (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

21 You haven't been frequenting the administrators noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard. Are you sure you have enough experience dealing with posts there to be an effective admin and will you add these to your watchlist once you gain adminship?

A: I believe I'll be as effective an admin as I am an editor. I've had a fair amount of exposure to AN & ANI over the past couple of years, including a little participation. And no, I won't watchlist them, because I hardly ever use the watchlist feature. When I go there, it is via shortcut. (I've worked extensively on Wikipedia's directories, and have most shortcuts memorized). The Transhumanist (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for The Transhumanist: The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for Go for it! (TT's first account) Go for it! (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• For the rest of his accounts, see the talk page

---

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

• Probably irrelevant, but you point out in your answer to Q1 that once you gain access to administrative tools, you'll remove the class "MainPageBG". For the sake of informing you, this class, although it seems it may not exist, acts as what I call a ghost class. Users can add .MainPageBG { display: none; } to their monobook, or whatever, and have it not displaying. Classes that aren't necessarily defined aren't just there to confuse editors upon surveying the main page code. Spebi 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's relevant. It's nice to finally know what that is. You've saved me the trouble of continuing my search. Thank you. The Transhumanist (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should check out the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist2 Its pretty interesting reading, especially the candidates views on RfA oppose !votes. Personally, I agree that unsupported but wordy and strong sounding opposes can unfairly influence other !voters... While TH may have been correct I wouldn't say that he was being wise or prudent in his manner of rebuttal. Avruch^Talk 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This time, I've shifted my focus upon my own behavior, which is the issue being discussed here, reserving observation about the RfA system for others to discuss on the appropriate forums - I feel that I should not get involved with RfA reform at this time because it would be a conflict of interest, until after I actually become an admin. After that, I would be able to share my observations from a 20/20 retrospective vantage point. The Transhumanist (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't going too good. I do not think the candidate should use smileys in his text. Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think smileys are harmless, and are useful for adding expression to one's writing. But I certainly wouldn't put them in an encyclopedia article, except the articles on smileys and emoticons. Disallowing emoticons across the Wikipedia community seems a bit bureaucratic to me, and is really an issue of allowing or disallowing people to be themselves. Since people are accustomed to using smileys throughout the Internet (on email, in website forums, etc.), and many have incorporated them into their on-line communication style and personality, I don't believe Wikipedia should ban the practice. But if the community at large creates a guideline against their use, I would respect that. Formality is appropriate for articles, but I believe we should let our editors be human in their communications with each other. The closest thing I could find to a guideline is Wikipedia:Emoticons, which doesn't discourage their use. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to burn that page with fire (i.e., get rid of it), now that I've pointed it out. The Transhumanist (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, Transhumanist, I admire the way you have taken this RfA. You are doing alot of replying, trying to learn as much as possible as you can from this. Although I opposed was neutral, I really do want to say well done. Jack?! 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was going to comment on this RfA, but I'm just not liking the low level of civility I'm seeing from the community here. We've got endless attacks and arguments in the oppose section and it's spreading all over this discussion. I refuse to be a part of such an incivil debate. I don't know why everyone's getting so emotional over this RfA. Good luck Transhumanist, but I won't comment (It won't make much difference in the long run as most of my opinions have been stated below). Everyone should take a break and calm down. It's just adminship riight? :) Spawn Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might you like to elaborate on your allegations of incivility? —Kurykh 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. As nom. --Dweller 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I know TH has had some issues with some people before as evidenced by his previous RfA. However I believe his work demonstrates a competence for working here and his school, while derided by some, evidences a desire to help others. As an admin he will not harm our project but can and will bring needed experience. - JodyB _talk 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - per my guidelines and the fact that the user seems to have grown greatly since their last RFA. All the best, — Rudget _{contributions} 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Lara❤Love 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support This user would make a great Administrator. (Especially with an awesome total of 1909 edits in November of 2007) Redmarkviolinist ^(talk) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Of course. The Rambling Man 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. You're freaking kidding me! I can't believe you're not already an admin. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I don't see any problem.--NAHID 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support This should have happened already, much earlier. I, for one, have always looked up to this editor. Amazing understanding of the way Wikipedia works, and a comprehensive knowledge of the policies and guidelines. Did I forget to mention a helping attitude? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Glad to see you back again; pleased to support this time. Jmlk17 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - have seen The Transhumanist change for the better over time. It has been a difficult journey, especially with those two past RfAs, but I think you are now ready. I would now trust you to know when to talk to people first and to use the tools responsibly. Carcharoth 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support! *MindstormsKid* 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I do not recall ever having seen anything but good contributions from this editor. bd2412 T 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. No doubt. A great user. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Very Strong Support - I will keep supporting this really capable, hard-working and completely dedicated to the project editor as long as it takes...--Cometstyles 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support - has one of the most useful sets of userpages on the 'pedia, evidence enough of TT's understanding of this place and its aims. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - good user.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, good user. Redrocketboy 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - clear willingness to help others constructively and to learn from mistakes, qualities essential to a good admin. DuncanHill 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, working hard positively to finally benefit Wikipedia as admin despite past RfA voting. Monsieurdl 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. He is not going to misuse the tools, everything else is negligible. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:22, December 3, 2007

    Yeah well, so this RfA wasn't successful. A shame in my opinion, especially because I can't help the impression that TTH was simply declared the weekly RfA punching bag for no good reason. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:29, December 10, 2007

22. Ack! I was hoping to co-nominate, but this thing is already well in swing. I first met TH about a month after he started editing Wikipedia. I was slowly tweaking Portal:Middle-earth into shape and some guy came along and said, 'Hey cool! Why don't we move this over here and add these and change the color and rearrange all the boxes!' Perhaps not his exact words, but you get the idea. I thought it was great. Sure, I didn't agree with everything he was doing, but overall it was good stuff and I had no problem working with him... with a much improved page as a result. Since then from time to time he has come by and done cleanup for something I was working on, like Wikipedia:Featured content, or I have seen him at the Main Page redesign and Welcoming committee, or he has asked me for some template help on one of his projects like Tip of the Day or Virtual Classroom. We've always gotten along. Lots of energy and always looking to help and make things better. He's like User:Quiddity on uppers (believe me, I mean that as a high compliment to them both). What can I say, he makes me smile. He has been here for over two years. He has some ludicrous number of edits. He has never been blocked. He hasn't even been in anything like 'dispute resolution' for months now. I mean... what the heck? He can't have the tools because he wants them? What is that? People are apparently concerned that he'd 'break the main page', but in fact he has more understanding of the wikimarkup than most admins and these things do need maintenance. Why not give that work to someone who enjoys it? He did say that he would check if there were any concerns before making the updates after all. --CBD 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong Support. The Transhumanist has made many many efforts to improve wikipedia. His User page and sub-pages are amazing, and benefit Wikipedia greatly. The Wiki School is especially great. I would definitely trust this user with the tools. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support, I've seen nothing but good things, personally. Prodego ^talk 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support 30k edits between accounts... Whew. I'm a little perturbed that opposers (though there are few) take his previous RfA objections and reiterate them, especially in relatively short order after transclusion. 30k contributions are a lot to flip through! Avruch^Talk 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I believe that this experienced user can be trusted with the tools. I'm not convinced by the opposition. Húsönd 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed to neutral. Húsönd 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. I too am a bit baffled by the opposition to this guy. Clearly somebody we can trust. --JayHenry 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support A great user whom we can trust. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I have no qualms: trustworthy and skilled. Pigman☿ 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. the_undertow ^talk 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support: The Transhumanist has contributed usefully to Wikipedia. -- Mentifisto 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak Support The concerns from last time (when I opposed) and still raised below are valid. However I was taken by the fact that you cited WP:BITE in your answer to Q10. Good response. On balance I think you will be a net gain with admin tools. Of course you're a massive benefit to Wikipedia with or without +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per Dorftottel, Pedro, et al. Fuller rationale tomorrow. I am out of time. Dlohcierekim 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional rationale for my support and free advice. User has requested the tools for limited purposes. I believe he is competent to use the tools in the areas requested. While the nom wants to review deleted articles and submit to DRV, he has not indicated that he would unilaterally reverse AfD's en masse. An extra set of hands on some of the edited areas should not be too damaging. Concerns were raised about contentiousness. I do not believe the nom will engage in wheel warring, the main reason to deny a contentious editor the buttons. I saw no indication of the user loosing his temper. The nom has great enthusiasm for the project. I would urge him to take into account the trouble he's gotten into over past rashness and go slow. I would urge the nom to seek feedback from others-- not just those who agree with him. Sometimes it is better to seek advice form one's critics. Wanting the tools. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin. We all wanted the tools or we'd have not requested them. Condescension and arrogance/Communication. At first I read the nom as condescending and arrogant because he uses grandiloquent, flowery language and circumlocutions. Although I would suggest he use greater conciseness more often, I no longer see this as an indication of being likely to abuse the tools. Nom must remember that he is not always being as clear as he could be. Conciseness! Question 10 I don't understand oppose based on the answer to Question 10. I read it as a new user with a lack understanding got a newly created page deleted and lashed out in anger and frustration at the deleter. I would have not blocked for that either. Education and firmness about our policies is more productive than blocking. If education and firmness fail, there is plenty of time to block. An admin who is reluctant to block is not likely to abuse the tools due to a twitchy trigger finger. Dlohcierekim 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support Most of my interactions with The Transhumanist have been related to the contents navigation systems in Wikipedia. We butted heads quite a bit in the olden days, but I can see a kinder, gentler TT in how he interacts with folks today. He is strong-willed and decisive IMHO, but he also does an excellent job in communicating his position and will change it when persuaded on the merits of an argument. Getting around Wikipedia is a trip, and we certainly can use a few more admins who are willing to put in the thought and time necessary to help move forward the never-ending progression of collaborations focused on making this project more reader friendly. RichardF 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Hardworking, very good at the technical side of things, and (as far as I'm aware) a nice guy. There's absolutely no evidence that he will abuse or misuse the tools. "Lack of need for the tools" is a weak reason to oppose; we have too few admins at present, not too many, and I don't see that there's any harm in promoting someone who doesn't urgently "need" the tools per se, provided s/he knows how to use them appropriately. Walton^One 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Anthøny 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. I agree with Walton One: I also trust this user with the tools, and I have no reason not to. Using them occasionally and properly is far more preferable than someone who uses them all the time and frequently uses them incorrectly. Acalamari 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Both user and project should feel the benefit this user's sysophood. Adminship is not a big deal. GDonato (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I don't think that eagerness to be an admin is bad; if a user feels they'd be more useful with extra abilities, then they have that right. Anyway, I believe the user has righted himself from earlier falls. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Based on past experiences with 'em. Shenme (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, a user who has displayed the desire to help the project (even though some people might not agree with the ways this desire has manifested itself) and patience with the more or less ludicrous RfA process. Time to give them the tools and let them exercise their full potential on the project. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support I believe that this user will make an excellent addition to the list of excellent admins. Marlith ^T/C 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support I have no doubt that the user both needs the tools and will use them appropriately. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support -- What's the biggie?? Manderiko (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong Support His work with users in coaching them, and with lists of basic topics is definitely quite good. He ought be commended on the good work he has done here. Twenty Years 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminship is not a reward. —Moondyne 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think weve been around long enough to know that one, he has clearly demonstrated that he deserves the mop. Twenty Years 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

45. Support A dedicated and helpful editor who is more than experienced enough. Spellcast (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. While I understand the opposers, my only interactions with this user, in recent months, have been civil, even when at XfD's we disagreed. Prolific, useful, experienced editor who can now be trusted with the mop. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I'm surprised he's not an admin already (though I was, in fact, aware of this). His positive attitude on admin coaching, virtual classroom etc. outweighs the negativity that has been brought up from the distant past. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Though I understand the opposers' concerns, I think The Transhumanist will do just fine. Captain panda 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - am confident he will use the tools appropriately--Matilda ^talk 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Keepscases (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support The mop isn't that big of a deal, and this user has proven himself time and time again to be a worthy Wikipedian who is responsible enough to handle the tools. --Sharkface217 01:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support -although it's scary with all that feelings he seems to generate, it's looks to me this is errors in the past. Not only is this candidate a vast contributor, he also loks like the kind of persons who grows- and I like that. If he says he needs to gnomify protected pages, I am sure he does, and a lot of them. Greswik (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Very strong support--Consider me a co-nom--when I met this guy, he interceded and defused a content dispute, in what involved a "delicate matter" psychologically, so to speak. As an (I guess, now former!) WP:AMA member, I was quite impressed when the other fellows —ahhh, difficulty in handling 'confrontation' and 'rejection', etc.— became apparent. In the context, someone had "hijacked" a page and entirely changed its function. Some of you know how I abhor reverts, and the circumstances were such that I felt I had no other choice... a big thing, at least to me! (Would that more of you felt the same way! <g>)
    So piffle on anyone holding this editor's feet to the fire for past indiscretion's, the way he conducted that refereeing intercession, and maturity he demonstrated (while in the main opposing my "bent" and supporting that of the the other guy—which was hardly (NOT!) confrontational or disruptive. Quite the opposite!) speaks volumes and volumes about him—all to the good.
    
    Such is so much falderal, in any event, there are only a few questions that should bear:
       1) Is he someone that holds grudges and acts out immaturely?
       2) Does he have enough experience and skill on the wikipedia system
       3) Is he going to deliberately push the limits and cause disruption and such.
       4) Can he be trusted to continue being a good editor?
    
    I can't say anything but yes to all of those, and Nothing I've seen "in evidence" makes me think otherwise. Consider, lastly, we all grow up as time takes it's toll. His self-nom was perhaps not for the best of reasons, or better say, probably should not have been so publically stated, for one in school and involved in a project like this, becoming an Admin is both a reasonable goal, and one perhaps commendable to some—last I heard, there was no age limit on Adminship, and his track record speaks pretty plainly that he will comport himself much more professionally than some (perhaps many) who already hold the office. He has sufficient edit experience, and frankly, anyone around here that holds grudges from past disputes should be the one "under the microscope". We all make mistakes. We all, hopefully learn from them as time goes by. Inasmuch as this is a fairly interactive society, I'm quite confident that if any Admin steps over the line too often, they will hear about it from somebody... more likely, somebodies (or were those cat-fights I've seen on AN/I???), and with the work load and admin burn-out rate, if he's dumb enough to take the responsibility, let him share the work. Cheers! // FrankB 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (Correct ambiguous pharasing... my bad! // FrankB 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
54. Support - Q8, answers to WP:IAR; Discussion, mentioning conflict of interest; and Q11, answers discussing the values of humanism. Trust with the tools is not an issue for me, because I think the Transhumanist is enough like me. I would not abuse tools, so in that sense I think adminship for him is not an issue. Thanks to Quiddity whose thoughtful research I took into account. After consideration, I came to the conclusion from my own experience and 'good answer' consensus theory, that there simply may not be enough editors or admins like The Transhumanist at Wikipedia. Milo 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Upon reviewing, I trust the candidate to neither abuse the buttons, nor throw his weight around in his administrative function. Beyond that, adminship is not a big deal. He wants the tools and explained why. As a bonus point, I also trust the nominator's judgement. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Weak Support While still not 100% convinced, I cannot see any evidence this candidate would abuse the tools. Read in conjunction with my stricken neutral vote below. Orderinchaos 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support for all above--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. You look like someone who would use the tools well. Good luck. bwowen talk•contribs 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Late Support I feel The Transhumanist has truly earned trust by tireless dedication - a user well suited for the tools. Good luck, Dfrg_msc 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, there is some unsavoury stuff in this user's history, but that is history. User puts a lot of effort into various things all over the Wiki and I'm confident that they'd use the tools wisely. Lankiveil (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
61. Support per same rationale as last time. Sorry TT, I didn't see this earlier. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I object. An important objection in his previous nom was that he was overly formal, too bureaucratic, and lacking in actual understanding of Wikipedia. His previous nom was withdrawn at 36 opposes, which seems indicative of significant issues, but more importantly I have seen no evidence that TTH has improved with respect to this earlier criticism. >Radiant< 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Radiant, please explain what I do that you feel is overly formal and too bureaucratic, along with examples. And, what is it about Wikipedia that you believe I do not understand? I look forward to your observations. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Radiant has responded on my talk page, so I've copied his reply immediately below (The Transhumanist (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

   I believe it is telling that, if over a dozen different people over the course of two RFAs tell you that you are too formal and bureaucratic, you are unable to understand why, and require an explanation along with examples. It's a matter of attitude; and it's a fact of the 'pedia that not every effective editor (like you are) would make an effective admin. Recommended reading material on the subject is the page WP:PPP. >Radiant< 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You posted the same opposition in my last RfA as you did in this one. I'm interested in learning your reasons, and hope that others are too. What have I done that was overly formal? What activities of mine were too bureaucratic? Please enlighten me. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Radiant replied on my talk page again. I don't know why he won't reply here. Here's his reply:

   Well, paradoxically, part of the problem is that you don't realize what the problem is. >Radiant< 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And you've yet to tell me. You've stated that I'm "lacking of actual understanding of Wikipedia." Would you care to explain what it is about Wikipedia that you believe I don't understand? You've also labeled me as "overly formal" and "too bureaucratic". These are pretty strong !accusations that are influencing the outcome of my RfAs. Would you care to back your statements up? What have I said or done that has led you to these conclusions? The Transhumanist (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Radiant, if you want The Transhumanist to improve on the problems you have listed, it is a good idea to show him why he hasn't improved as well as showing him what he can do to get better. Captain panda 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose I'm afraid I don't understand your answer to Q1. Could you please answer more concisely on this page? Dlohcierekim 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Switch to support. Full rationale tomorrow. Dlohcierekim 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. His answer at the link is quite good. But TH you might consider copying it to the answer section rather than depending on folks to click to it. - JodyB _talk 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Jody. Idid read the talk page answer. I was asking for a little conciseness, less rambling. I want to be sure. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Further oppose rationale. Nom could not honor a simple request to give a more concise answer. I sense an element of condescension toward my request, as though I could not trouble myself to read what was posted on the talk page, and thus did not deserve a more communicative response. I sense a dismissive attitude that does not bode well for an admin candidate's ability to handle conflict. Further, I find Kurykh's oppose rationale to be accurate. Dlohcierekim 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   But I did answer your post which you made on my talk page, and have been waiting for a response from you to clarify your request. The Transhumanist 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Agree with Radiant here--the very significant concerns from the previous nom have not been addressed in my opinion. I also find the answer to Q1 (which really should be on this page) quite troubling. TT's first response to "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" is "Editing protected pages would be useful" which is basically the exact opposite of what I would like to hear. As others mentioned in the last RFA, I don't see a real need for the tools. Instead I see a user who wants admin status for the sake of admin status, which is something to which I will always object on general principle.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, 'Editing protected pages' in and of itself IS a "real need for the tools". There are a ton of protected pages on Wikipedia. Some people seem to worry that TH would 'mess with the interface', but I'm all for it. Right now we have hundreds of protected interface pages with no organization to them at all. People make changes all the time, but they have to hunt around for the right MediaWiki page or don't fully understand the special markup for those pages. We could use someone 'messing' with that to get it organized. Consider that the Help:Contents page looked like this before TH started 'messing with' it in January 2006 and this afterwards (and still today). Sure, once he had cleaned it up and organized things there were different ideas about how to format and present stuff and it got changed around, but because of him the page went from a disorganized list to a valuable resource. Indeed, since it was then added as the 'Help' link on the Main page and throughout the project it has effectively become the 'top level help page' for the project. If TH pursued a similar project with the interface I've no doubt that the end result would again be an improved system which is better organized for other people to understand and make updates to as needed. Of course, there were quite a few other reasons for the tools listed there too, but don't dismiss 'editing protected pages' as a valid need. --CBD 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, CBD, for your response which is instructive and helpful (as has often been the case when I've read your comments). I was (admittedly) reading TT's "editing protected pages would be useful" comment from an article-space POV (the finer--and indeed the coarser!--points of wiki-markup are generally lost on me). So I'll chalk up that portion of my objection to a misunderstanding in terms of which part of the 'pedia we are talking about (i.e. I thought TT was referring to protected articles, when clearly he was not). However that sharpens my objection in another respect--namely that I'm concerned with the Transhumanist's apparent lack of interest in actual articles (irrespective of a definite interest in lists) which I take to be the main goal of the project. That combined with other objections (particularly TT's obviously intense desire to be an admin despite numerous objections from the community--which I really cannot now nor never get down with for reasons I cannot go into) keep me in the oppose column for now. But thanks again CBD for the clarification, and I do very much understand your point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If I came across a typo in a protected article, I would fix it. But I'd be very careful changing anything on a protected article that was the subject of a dispute. My goal in such cases would be to encourage civility, to help return the article to its normal unprotected state. Articles shouldn't be protected any longer than absolutely necessary, and I would certainly keep the admin who protected it in the first place in the loop if I unprotected the page -- with respect to articles in mediation, I'd leave the unprotection up to the mediator, unless he was no longer with the project. I hope my explanation helps. The Transhumanist (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I share the above concerns. In particular, that the first thing he would do as an admin would be to fiddle about with the Main page (however trivially) brings back the worry I and others had during his first RfA. – Steel 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There's a great deal of fiddling (over time) on the Main page. But this is necessary as long as the intent is to keep the Main page maintained and working smoothly. Refinements are okay, like fixing an obvious design flaw like a broken border. Major changes, or many small changes intended to transform the overall look and feel of the main page, belong on a draft in a WikiProject. I was a key participant in the Main page redesign which is now the current Main page design, and so I'm very familiar with the proposal process and with the Main page's wikicode. I've also created several main page alternatives, and help maintain that set of pages, most of which have wikicode almost identical to the main page itself. I was also the one who made the proposal to place the "Contents" link on there. Therefore, I'm qualified to help maintain the Main page, and am very aware of what type of changes are appropriate. The two changes I would like to make, which I mentioned in my answer to Question #1 above, are the only things I've noticed that need fixing (problems on the Main page are relatively rare), and they are representative of the types of changes I would make. One of the things we did in the redesign project was test format elements in several browsers to make sure they showed up the same for everyone. I would continue to take the same precaution. The Transhumanist (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that's the problem everyone's been raising. See in particular, [4] and [5]. – Steel 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - The candidate seems eager to edit the main page and overturn deletions. This is especially worrying in light of the edit history, showing lots of editing of key lists without any communication with the associated WikiProjects. While the optional questions above truly are optional, most noms to RfA answer at least some of those questions. The Transhumanist has seen and edited this page long after some of these questions were posted, but has not answered even one of them. In answering question 1, s/he chose initially to link to another page rather than post a reply. All this bodes ill, painting a picture of an uncommunicative editor who does not understand that Wikipedia is a community as much as it is a depository of information. I would rather that sort of editor did not have access to edit the main page. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (btw, I'm a he, not a s/he. Just a FYI.) -TT 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but I had to get some sleep. I accepted the nomination and then went to bed. The Transhumanist 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps, but then seven hours later you posted briefly on this page, but left the optional questions unanswered for another hour and a half, responding only after I opposed. I'm not encouraged by your responses either. When answering Q6 you addressed only the edit summary, not the content being edited. That says to me that you're more interested in procedure and protocol than improving content. I stand by my vote. --EncycloPetey 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I got online briefly, then I worked out, ate breakfast, and showered/shaved. And I'm sorry if I misinterpretted question #10, the edit summary is what I thought he was referring to. Other than the edit summary, I don't see anything wrong with that particular edit. The Transhumanist 06:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Three things:

   1. You have now had ample time to look over and respond to the questions, but still have chosen not to respond to Q7 at all.
   2. I didn't say anything about Q10 in my previous comment; I commented on your response to Q6. I assume that, as a potential admin, this page and its procedings are very important to you. Yet, you read my "6" as a "10" and, in the intervening eight hours, haven't noticed the error on what is a very important page for you. This leaves me to wonder even more about your desire to make changes to the main page. Will you rush in, make careless minor errors in your edits, then trot off to bed or a meal without proofreading carefully?
   3. Q6 was open-ended and deliberately so. You could have responded with regard to the content of what you were adding/changing, to the choice in how the content was hierarchically structured, to the formatting of the page, to the community interaction behind the edit, or any of a number of other issues. Instead of all of these, the only potential subject that came to mind in your response was the edit summary, which is of secondary importance to all the other items I just listed.

   As I said, you seem to be concerned more with procedure and less with community consensus and interaction both in the manner and content of your responses. Nothing in the past twelve hours that you have done or said has countered that impression, or indeed you seem to have made no effort to address that concern at all, even after I raised the issue explicitly. An uncommunicative editor, who responds only briefly (or not at all) on issues of personal importance is not someone I consider to be a good candidate for adminship. --EncycloPetey 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry about the typo. I pledge that I will continue to make a lot of those. Hopefully not to the Main page though.  :-) The Transhumanist (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And here all this time I thought the questions were optional - per EncycloPetey, we all stand corrected. Candidates would be better off dodging 'gotcha' questions (otherwise known as 'deliberately open ended) than jumping into a finely prepared minefield. Avruch^Talk 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I would appreciate an apology, Avruch, for your uncivil comments. I came to this vote knowing nothing about the candidate. No "minefield" was prepared, only a Rorschach test. I wanted to know what the nom would look for in reviewing an edit, and did not care for that answer or other answers provided. The nom has been up twice before with a huge number of opposing votes, but seems reluctant to discuss issues. That combines with what Isee in the edit history to make an unpromising candidate for admin. Now, if you wish to accuse me of something, please do not. It is not in the community spirit, it is mean-spirited, and it is irrelevant to this vote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Replying on your talk page. Suffice it to say here that I won't be apologizing for critical feedback that is, in my view, not uncivil. Avruch^Talk 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Come on guys, please keep your feedback on whether or not I'm ready for the tools. Do you feel I'm technically qualified, do I have an intuitive feel for the project, and can I be trusted with the tools? That's what we're here to discuss. Please stay on-topic.  :-) The Transhumanist (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   EncyclopPetey, continuing where I left off above... you presented a link to a specific edit, then asked if there was anything I would do different. So naturally, I looked the edit over. When I found a mistake, I reported it to you. If there had been a different mistake, or additional mistakes, I would have reported those. If instead you had asked how I would further develop the page along with a generic link to it, I would have focused my response on that.

   But I don't feel that any of that matters. What matters is that the participants remain patient with each other and their understanding will improve as the conversation progresses. (In that spirit, I've gone back and looked at the page again. I've posted my additional comments under Question 6 above.)

   But you've still missed the point entirely. I never asked about errors, I asked what you would do differently. You interpreted that as "What mistake did you make?" You focussed on errors rather than improvements, and that was what I wanted to know about you. Asking the question differently would have added bias to your response. Now, I've already spent far more time with this vote than I had ever intended. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   But that was the only thing that I'd do differently with respect to that edit. The edit is fine, and I make edits like that all the time. You asked what I'd do differently. Other than the mistake I made, I'd make that same edit again. I'm as concerned about errors as the next guy, but that doesn't hamper me from making thousands of content contributions. With respect to the page and its further development, I've posted my approach for your consideration under Question #6 above. I hope this helps clarify my perspective. 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   To determine how communicative I am in general, please see my talk space contribs, and Wikipedia talk space contribs. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose I find your answer to question #1 still carrying the vestiges of the past "I want to be an admin to alter the interface" attitude that I found repugnant in past RfAs. Second thing, your lack of hesitance to make pledges like in question #9 adds more to the feeling that you will easily make rash decisions. The latter may be more of my opinion, but the former makes you sound (if I may be blunt) arrogant and egotistic, qualities incompatible with adminship. —Kurykh 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please keep in mind that others expect questions here to be answered quickly. So I'm going as fast as I can in the time I have available. Luckily, the pledge page was simple, its purpose clear, and making the decision to join was easy. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps instead of telling me that people want instant replies (I can quite clearly see that, and do not condone that, for the matter), you might want to attempt to assuage our concerns in the time you took to type that? On your pledge thing, "the pledge page is easy"...I beg to differ based on my observations of past drama ensuing from that category. Of course, that's just my opinion, and is a minor reason of opposition in comparison to the other, more pressing, matters. —Kurykh 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Further comment — my opposition is bolstered by your answer to question #12. You want the tools...for your convenience? You seem to misunderstand the point of adminship. Clarification or modification of your statement would help. —Kurykh 06:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. I have no doubt that there is improvement, but many of the concerns from previous RfAs are still present. As before, the Transhumanist seems primarily interested in categorizing, organizing and tweaking every last corner of the project, complete with constantly devised rules of how these things should be done. Dweller mentions Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics as a positive, but it reminds me a lot of TH's previous overzealous categorization campaigns. The answer to question 1 is also, as others have said, disturbing; it renews the previous concern of many users that this candidate will be editing the interface far more frequently and freely than is a good idea. Chick Bowen 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, pretty much because the above concerns are convincing. I'm afraid the concerns raised from your previous nominations still haven't been addressed. I don't think that his answers to the questions are satisfying at all, given the fact that to see the answers initially one must visit his talk page, and the fact that I really don't feel as I can trust your judgement when it comes to editing protected pages. I can also see in your answers that you need tools because it'll make your editing life easier; e.g., phrases like I frequently come across pages that I'd move but can't. I feel that, in particular some of the comments you make at the Virtual classroom and on your admin coaching pages (even in some of your answers), your instructions to users come across to me as overly bureaucratic. I don't see appropriate administrator qualities in you right now. Spebi 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - The Transhumanist is a very good editor. However, Radiant made a comment that didn't encourage me to support him. Masterpiece2000 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. I've found TT, in my experience, to be highly bureaucratic, and to often misunderstand the point someone is trying to make. Use any of the reasons above if mine sucks. I supported last time, but not today. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose No. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom candidate, administrator, and an unqualified 'no' !vote in an RfA. Which of the three doesn't/don't fit? (In less sarcastic words - a bad habit - could you elaborate please?) Avruch^Talk 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the championing of the nom by his supporters may be a bit telling as to how nom deals with conflict. Dlohcierekim 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I follow. The actions of the nominator and other supporters demonstrates TH's method of dealing with conflict? You're saying he is directing them? Are you including me? I've never had any exchanges with him directly... Also, I was asking Swatjester to elaborate. Avruch^Talk 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this comment by Dlohcierekim disturbing. It appears to me to suggest bad faith in those of us who have supported the candidate - I hope I am mistaken in my interpretation. I feel it needs elaborating.DuncanHill 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, y'all to have caused distress. My reply. Dlohcierekim 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Great job being civil here Avruch. This is about Transhumanist, not me. Answer 10 is absolutely terrible, and shows that he does not understand what a vandalism only account is. Next time you want to ask me to elaborate, do so in a less sarcastic way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism only account? Are we looking at the same question #10? It describes a hypothetical single outburst after a user's pet page was deleted. You're opposing him for saying he would NOT block that as a 'vandalism only account'... and I'd call it an abuse of the tools if he did. I guess some ideas of 'proper admining' have diverged so much that there's no pleasing everyone. --CBD 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think blocking a user who's only non-deleted contribution is a blatant vandalism of a user page/personal attack an "abuse of tools", and think in any way that's acceptable, you should resign your bit.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You should know, given your experience, that simple oppose votes with no reasoning aren't very useful. That was my point, and I think it well made. Now you've elaborated, people can understand your reasoning or lack thereof without being tempted to assume you know something they don't. Avruch^Talk 13:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Given my deliberately weak phrasing at Q10 (and a semi-hypothetical question) the answer I was looking for was what I got. No block. Delete content not right for Wikipedia but retain the editor. One of maxims. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - Your condescending manner with your coaching "students" just grates on me I'm afraid. Also, your answers to some of the questions with regards to an apparent eagerness to edit protected pages you can't currently worries me. —Moondyne 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If anything TTH has done a great job from my outside viewing (on Auroranorth), and what should be looked at is the improvement in Auroranorth's contributions to the encyclopedia, which have clearly improved as a result of TTH's coaching. Twenty Years 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moondyne, please point out what I said to Auroranorth that you feel was condescending. I look forward to your feedback. The Transhumanist (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I wasn't specifically referring to AN's coaching (I did not mention him by name, TY did), but it was more of a general comment regarding your tone with your students. I cannot give specific examples so you'll just have to take my word for it: you often come across as patronising. WP is not a school project. We're here to write a serious encyclopaedia, and people I've interacted with to date who make good contributions have generally worked that out on their own. —Moondyne 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started removing or replacing condescending statements as I find them. If you come across any in the future, please point them out to me.`

    With respect to what else you said, I believe most everybody can make good contributions from the start. But becoming better at building this encyclopedia is necessarily an interactive process. Nobody does that entirely on their own, and trial by error can be costly and painful. I wish I had a coach when I started, then maybe we wouldn't be here in my third RfA. :-) I believe coaching is beneficial because:

    1. it is tailored specifically to users' needs, and can rapidly speed them along their learning curve.
    2. it is recorded, so that others can learn from it
    3. coachees provide feedback on Wikipedia, which can be used to improve help and support

    I wrote the lesson Wikipedia:Learning the ropes, because I discovered that beginners were having a hard time getting up to speed. I encourage each my coachees to write a lesson on an aspect of Wikipedia that interests them and that needs additional coverage. They learned more by writing them, and the lessons provide an ongoing benefit to others.

    Your constant questioning and asking for specifics just helps to reinforce the stereotype of being too formal and bureacratic. I've given reasons for my oppose and will leave it at that. If you still feel you need more feedback, here is not the place - suggest you try editor review. —Moondyne 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll try to loosen up... (stretch). By the way, by referring me to another department, isn't that being bureaucratic?  :-) Just kidding. Come on, this is an informal discussion. And anything pertaining to why I should or should not be an admin is on-topic right here. The reasons given influence the decisions of others. Specifics are relevant. The Transhumanist (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per Radiant. Prior concerns have not been fully addressed. Given the depth of candidate's misunderstandings in the past, I need to see solid evidence that he has become more deliberative and less excitable. Even his acceptance of this nomination has me a bit worried, as if the candidate considers gaining the mop a very weighty matter. Xoloz 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, acquiring the mop is a lot more difficult for those with conflicts in their past. Does that mean they shouldn't try? No. But it means they will have to try harder. But the harder they try, the more it looks like they want the tools. The underlying principles here are:

    1. whether or not serving Wikipedia as an admin is worth the extra effort. (I believe it is).
    2. do we need admins with a high level of determination? (I believe we do).
    3. aside from the above reasons, can the admin be trusted with the tools? (this is what you are here to decide)

       one's level of desire isn't a concern, unless it reaches manic proportions, which I hope you agree mine has not.  :-) I'm just a highly-driven person. It boils down to trust. Trust is much more crucial in the case of a prolific individual, because he could do a lot more damage than someone who isn't. You must be sure. I understand your predicament and appreciate your concern. I hope that I've put in enough time and effort on Wikipedia for you to be able to know me, and for you to be able to predict my behavior accordingly. But if it takes another 30,000 edits, or another two years, no worries, because I'll still be here. The Transhumanist (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose I am not quite sure that the user gets the point about consensus. The issues over the first geography FLC showed, to me anyway, an issue surrounding consensus. Renominating straight after it was failed seemed to be a bit POINTy to me. I suppose it is a bit of a gut feeling that I don't quite think you are ready yet. Woodym555 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The person who closed the discussion suggested it. Please keep in mind that it's a feedback forum. I was at a loss on how to procede on the article's development, and some very valuable feedback was presented the second time around. I found the feedback providers' help extremely useful. The Transhumanist (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose Inadequate reply to q13 - I think you missed that one and its probably the most important one. Also, some of your answers to crucial questions (for example the one about whether you should reverse another admin) are too brief to allow proper understanding of how you would react to these situations. I don't mind a nudge on my talk page if you rectify these omissions and I'll happily review my position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose While it may be horribly unfair of me, TH always gives me the impression of thinking "consensus" consists of anyone who agrees with him and "trolls" consist of everyone who doesn't. As per the previous RFAs - and the IMO ridiculous "school" - he seems obsessed with adminship; while I don't want to stir the drama-pot, I have a feeling TH with admin powers would lead to an endless stream of "Durova incidents". — iridescent 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per !reply to question #13. The negative statements here resonate with my past experience with this candidate. Since my experience was over a year ago I thought the candidate might have changed since, so I asked question #13. By not answering, they confirmed my concern. — Sebastian 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)    (I am open to changing or amending this vote or statement. If you feel facts changed sufficiently after I posted this, please , as I may not be watching this page.)[reply]
17. Oppose — User clearly very much wants to be an administrator. Not a good sign. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, because we expect people who don't want to spend potentially countless hours blocking vandals, closing XfDs, dealing with page protection, and monitoring AIV and UAA (just to name a few) to be doing those jobs. People who really want to make a positive contribution to the project are obviously secretly out to destroy it. I hope you'll forgive my sarcasm, but I really don't find your comment constructive, helpful, or particularly meaningful in any way. We need people who want to be administrators - it's not a super special awesome job on its own - administrators pick up a lot of crap along the way. bwowen talk•contribs 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking for someone like Cincinnatus or George Washington — someone who doesn't want the job, but will do it anyway because he cares about the project. You know these kinds of people aren't going to have ulterior power-tripping motives. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to the fact that you are personally attacking The Transhumanist (baselessly calling someone power hungry is a personal attack, IMO). I would politely request that you either rephrase or withdraw your comment. bwowen talk•contribs 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, your definition of "Power-Hungry" sounded way better than the above oppose. just think of it this way, there are 2 types of power hungry people, one that works hard for the project and is given that power even if they "act" like they didn't want it or one that tries to gain power by doing anything possible to become and admin even if it means to create socks and vandalise and then revert and become a hero just for the glory....and my friend TTH is neither..those that try long and hard but get rejected by the community deserve it more than those they try and fail and go on a vandalism spree..--Cometstyles 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Sometimes it seems that this editor just can't communicate very well. No offense, but things just seem to go over his head. Whether intentional or not, it gives me the feeling that his logs would have to be watched to make sure he didn't do anything completely wrong. --- RockMFR 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. See my now-stricken neutral below. Daniel 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose I still have the same concerns that were raised last time and the time before and I haven't seen any improvement at all. In fact, the bureaucratic issues seem to be worse. I agree with Radiant and others above and as with Moondyne I find the manner taken with "coaching" condescending (this is a new issue for me and I only became aware of it when watching the coaching of Auroranorth). I also share Steel's and Kurykh's heebies about you fiddling with the interface and iridescent's thoughts about this school and how it reflects on your views of adminship and becoming an administrator. Also, asking to restore Auroranorth's access to AWB (something even he recognised he "obviously [wasn't] ready" for) left me seriously questioning your judgment. Sorry, but no. Sarah 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah, you've taken Auroranorth's statement out of context. Actually, you took that whole conversation out of context. Let me explain... when Auroranorth was removed from the AWB checkpage for reasons not directly related to his use of AWB, I asked that his AWB access be reinstated. Gnangarra, the admin who removed him, recognizing that Auroranorth was doing well in his training, responded to me that he would reinstate Auroranorth on AWB after he got 500 new main namespace edits without causing any problems. I was showing Auroranorth how to use his contribs display to show 500 main namespace edits. Edits before Nov 8 don't count toward the 500, so when the bottom edit on the list is Nov 8, then that means he's met Gnangarra's prescription. Auroranorth was simply informing me that the date of the earliest edit from his latest 500 edits was Sept. 24. By "not ready yet", Auroranorth meant that he hadn't yet performed the 500 mainspace edits required by Gnangarra. The Transhumanist (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I concurred with Gnangarra's statement and certainly did not take it literally in that as soon as AN had 500 edits he had automatic AWB access. I'd just given AN a cool-down block for careless and disruptive use of Twinkie as well as aggressive and unjustified vandal warnings and the idea of another semi-automatic editor in his hands was of real concern. Its unfair on AN to be dragging him through this as the matter at hand is Transhumanist, but I think that when he (AN) said he wasn't ready yet, he meant he just felt he wasn't ready (to his credit), not that he hadn't yet done the required 500 edits. Earlier you'd told him wrt AWB, "I forgot how fun using that is. It sure racks up edits fast!" - which sends a bad signal that editcounting is important. It was in that overall context that his Twinkle and AWB access was removed. Here you said "Because you are under my supervision, you've been approved for WP:AWB" What the? The reality was more like his access was removed partly because he was under your care and the advice he was being given. I don't see that Sarah read AN's statement out of context at all. Even though I personally see your coaching and discussion with your students condescending, the overall benefit of it is probably positive and I'd guess that AN and others you've helped would say it was a good thing. Your patience is commendable, but I just don't believe that you are admin material. (PS: I just read your reply to Oppose #26 in your last RfA and sincerely feel for you). —Moondyne 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Auroranorth was banned from editing pages in the Wikipedia namespace. He therefore couldn't post a request to acquire AWB access. So I did it for him, explaining there that I was his coach, and pledged to take full responsibility for any problems that might occur (that is, clean them up myself). If I hadn't been his coach, this would never have happened. It was in this context that I wrote "because you are under my supervision, you've been approved for AWB". The Transhumanist (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It would never be approved for good reason. Just because everything a wayward editor does can be revereted doesn't justify throwing out the control of only offering the tool to editors in good standing. Do you not see that? —Moondyne 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TT, I appreciate your willingness to take responsibility for your students by promising to rollback any inappropriate edits they make while using automated tools, but for me as an administrator, I would not let that promise influence my decision whether to approve someone or not. You can't be here 24/7 and if one of your students caused havoc with automated tools it would fall to RC people and admins to clean it up. Auroranorth needs to be ready on his own terms and not because you have promised to clean up after him if he stuffs up. Sarah 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, I didn't know he was using Twinkle. I've never even used that myself. Is it very useful? The Transhumanist (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it very useful? I have no idea. But what's that got to do with this discussion? —Moondyne 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. oppose reluctantly because in some ways your efforts are valuable. I have concerns about you wanting to give automated tools to editors who have just returned after extended blocks for various issues including disruption, yet silent when the editors actions were questioned and resulting in the editor being blocked for 7 days. Once the editor returned you complained about the removal of automated tools, to finish it off you told the editor to count his edits as soon as he had 500 edits he could get AWB back, the response from the editor shows a greater understanding, and he's a long way from being ready for RfA. Its this that concerns me about you having access to the tools. Gnangarra 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have faith in Auroranorth. I recognize what he is going through, because I went through the same phase. He has a great hunger to learn, and is excited about Wikipedia, and so he goes as fast as he can. Wikipedia is awesome, and energizes me in the same way. The problem was that he was operating without supervision and therefore was learning entirely by trial-and-error, but was still going as fast as he could. And because of this, just like I did when I started, he stepped on a lot of toes. He didn't want to piss anyone off, he just didn't know how not to and still go fast. And he's a hands-on learner. So in order to serve him better, I started giving him assignments. I can barely keep up, because he completes his assignments almost as fast as I give them to him. Concerning AWB, Auroranorth and I made an agreement that he would use it only on his assignments, until I believed he was ready to use it on his own. He kept his word. I have no reason at all to distrust him. And if you can trust me, I request that you reinstate his AWB access early. Most of Auroranorth's AWB edits can be seen here. The purpose of the assignment was to fill the external links sections of those pages temporarily by copying the links from the articles of the same subjects. The copy operation was intended to provide a starting point for editing, and I intend to refine those sections, so they fit the pages' purpose and scope better. The Transhumanist (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    this isnt Auroranorths rfa its yours, yes Auroranorth is improving but he's not acting as an independent editor he just doing what ever task you set him to. Your determination to count to 500 and bingo you got it, only further indicates that you arent ready for the tools yet. It has also done damage to Auroranorth efforts to put his past actions behind him. By focusing on him in your response and not your actions shows your not ready for the mop. Gnangarra 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So lets just avoid that TTH has helped to turn Auroranorth's editing around, and help him in the right direction. To say that he hasn't helped Auroranorth is a blaitant lie. If showing faith in an editor is a crime, then there are certainly others who might be, er....guilty? But thats not why we are here: TTH has made a lot of wonderful contributions to wikipedia, not only in coaching people, but also in his work with lists of basic topics. Twenty Years 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I said oppose reluctantly because in some ways your efforts are valuable... I haven't said he hasn't helped Auroranorth. My comment is about his lack of judgement in wanting to give automated tools to an editor who was under a cloud. AGF isnt a suicide pact AWB and other tools are given based on trust IMHO TTH doesn't recognise this he's only interested in edit counts and has said he wants to focus on giving access to AWB, also XfD's are closed based on policy and consensus how can I trust TTH not to just count the numbers in discussions? Gnangarra 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Twenty Years, I agree that Aurora has improved under TT's guidance and I also agree that TT does good work on Wikipedia and has made positive contributions to the lists and so forth, however, neither of those things are reasons to give someone admin tools. There are lots of people who make "a lot of wonderful contributions to wikipedia" who are simply not suitable for adminship. Hell, you could count most of the prominent feature article writers in this group. It doesn't mean that their contributions aren't recognised or appreciated, it just means that they have different attributes that aren't really suited for adminship. I think you need to stop seeing adminship as a type of reward (it really isn't). Sarah 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminship is clearly not an award or a reward, hence the person is "handed the mop". Ask yourself: What would be the net result of giving TTH the mop? the answer you will find is a positive one. Twenty Years 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked myself that question! That's essentially what we ask ourselves each time we review an RfA. However, for me, it isn't a positive answer. I recognise the user's positive contributions but do not feel comfortable with this RfA at all, I'm afraid. I don't really have anything else to say beyond the fact that I am not at all comfortable with this candidate becoming an administrator but I recommend if you have more to say that any further discussion be taken to the talk page. It really isn't fair on the candidate to clog up his RfA with this. Sarah 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's relevant. Posting here is fine. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Per Sarah and Daniel. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per people above me. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose - I think the user is too bureaucratic in his view of Adminship. PookeyMaster (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you mind explaining that comment a little bit? I don't quite understand what you mean by it. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It means that TTH is more concerned with creating, maintaining, and following process, rules, and other Byzantine intricacies instead of writing the encyclopedia and actually getting things done. —Kurykh 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was under the impression that this was a positive thing--after all, aren't the admins the ones tasked with doing the scut work, enforcing the rules, and dealing with all those little intricacies so that people can write the encyclopedia? I mean, the symbol isn't a mop for nothing. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 09:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a difference between enforcing the rules and processes for the betterment of the encyclopedia and creating Byzantine processes and rules just to make us look fancy. TTH has veered towards the latter. —Kurykh 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose - This was tough (and almost voted neutral), as the user is obviously a well-meaning editor. It's just that, after seeing various XfD (and other) discussions, I just don't agree with the user's interpretation of some policies/guidelines. That said, there's a chance I may support next time. - jc37 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Don't want the interface to look like his sig. In all seriousness, per Sarah and Daniel. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It appears that he has changed it to a more vanilla version, presumably in response to feedback such as this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to use both, but will often update all his vanilla sigs on a page, to the colourful version. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I like his sig. <<grin>> Was thinking of technicoloring mine, too. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose I've seen little change since TH's last RfA. And the concerns are the same. And the nominee seems to want the admin tools more than anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some further thoughts. I remember what annoyed me about the previous 2 RfA's--the editors need to respond to many of the opposes. It's not necessary, and indicates to me a lack of sensitivity to creating a compromise or consensus. AND, more telling, the nominee did admit to a desire to step back from the argumentative replies to each oppose. I guess that didn't stick. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I've been uncivil in any way, please show me so that I can further refine my responses to be politely inquisitive, calmly clarifying, and respectfully civil.

    I don't see how answering opposes indicates a lack of sensitivity to creating a compromise or consensus. Could you explain that to me please? I'm confused by why you would want a consensus created about someone without their participation. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I view this page like any other in the Wikipedia name space - it is an informal discussion like any other, and I'm here to help reach a consensus, and to learn. One way I can do both is seek clarification to vague or confusing statements. It's pretty hard to address concerns if you don't even know what the statements are referring to. Please explain your reasoning for your concerns, and why you believe they apply to me. It would also help immensely if you would substantiate any statements you make about me with examples. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose per Xoloz. Neil ☎ 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose, mostly as per Radiant at the top. The editor comes across as a nice chap, a little steam engine, but the answers to question one do not really require admin powers, and looking over his edit history I see hundreds and hundreds of tiny little reflexive automatic edits, e.g. this diff links a couple of words, but doesn't fix the broken grammar that surrounds those words; same here, from the same run. This diff, the only one he has ever made to that page, from an extensive earlier run, links "dental hygiene" to dental hygienist in a context where it would better link to oral hygiene, and there were sixty runs of that pass. I know we're not evaluating the user's ability to edit articles, and I know that bots are not exclusive to admins, but I am worried that this user might get into enormous trouble with automatic edits, and that he might apply the same automated mindset to administrative tasks. The idea of a relentless, unstoppable vandal-whacker stroke administrator is superb, but there has to be judgement, and I need to see more evidence of it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The links I added in the first two examples didn't themselves create any problems, and those links are useful on the pages they are presented -- I'll expand my focus to the surrounding grammar in the future (thank you for the feedback). The last diff was to an article on a polytechnic, which is a type of vocational school. My reasoning was that the main purpose of a diploma or degree (vocational training) on dental hygiene is to become a dental hygienist, and that article puts the degree into perspective, and in turn leads to the articles which a dental hygienist needs to know. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

29. Oppose (switch to Strong oppose). The points brought up above prevents me from casting a support vote. And what really made me oppose was at admin coaching. I am kind of surprised to see that your name is on the coach list of Admin coaching. Although there are no rules against a normal editor being an admin coach, but virtually all the coaches are admins. I kind of view this as a "being an admin coach so that you can become one" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, Assume good faith. Around the time I had 12,000 edits, I was referred to admin coaching. So I went there, but I found it a total mess. There was this huge waiting line. And there wasn't anyone in line who had more edits than me, so I became a coach and helped clean up the department. So far, I've coached and nommed 3 admins. The Transhumanist (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, that's not just my impression. One of your student (who is now an admin) expressed similar views and agree with my hypothesis over MSN. I cannot release further information about this individual because of privacy reasons. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's still an impression. Does the number of people who have an impression about what someone was thinking have any bearing on what that person was actually thinking? No. I've told you my reasoning for admin coaching. You can decide to assume good faith or not. Individually, or en masse. That's beyond my contol. So I won't worry about it. The Transhumanist (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Switched to strong oppose. Your answer to Q11 only tries to confuse people and throw us off the track. "I take Vitamin C four times per day for its bio-preservative anti-oxidant", "Do doctors play God? I don't know." (What?! How does this relate to RfA or let even Wikipedia???) And your Q13 makes me believe that you are unwilling to answer a loaded question (and questions like this occurs very often to admins as they are involved in block and deletion actions). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Q13 is not a loaded question. However, TT did answer Q11 which is somewhat loaded by an indirect reference to God. I was not confused or thrown by A11, but if that had happened as a consequence of its informal loading, I would still consider A11 as an answer acceptable to your point. Note that Q11 included "outside of Wikipedia", so TT's answer is on-topic. IMHO, "strong oppose" is too extreme over a little answer style disagreement — and — you might consider whether you want confidential hearsay entered at your next RfA about something so minor. Milo 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose. I wasn't going to raise the issue of the main page redesign (because it was so long ago), but the user bragged above about his "key" role. That was my first significant interaction with him, and I felt as though roughly half of my effort was dedicated to countering his disruptive (albeit well-meaning) involvement (which I believe otherwise would have derailed the project). While he's made a genuine effort to improve, my subsequent interactions with him (and some of what I've read here) have led me to conclude that many of my (and others') concerns have not been adequately addressed. —David Levy 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. per Daniel. Too many concerns not addressed since last RFA. — Ocatecir^T 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Weak Oppose I feel TTH is a good guy, but see no reason for the tools and have some concerns brought up by others. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose Nothing has changed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose per Bigtimepeace Mindraker (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose While his conduct is better than his previous RFAs, I think he still has a long way to go in terms of attitude and mindset, I think. Also, per Iridescent, no more Durovesque incidents. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose Per those who have concerns about the Admin School; it may be my personal attitude to doing things, but I wouldn't want someone who takes such a pedagogical tone to be the person newish users getting in to trouble by mistake come across. They need to feel at home, not feel lectured at or they will leave the project as quickly as they arrive. Chrislintott (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose. Good grief no. The first thing you want to do is go and attack the main page. There's too many other problems I find myself agreeing with, I just can't support this candidacy, sorry. Nick (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2, given the plethora of issues raised there haven't been addressed to a level where I could be confident of supporting this nomination (although I don't feel I should oppose it). The answers to the questions didn't inspire me to move one way or the other. Daniel 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Switching to oppose per a re-reading of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2 and application of the 'oppose' comments to the current situation, as it sufficiently concerns me enough now to oppose this RfA. Daniel 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. I previously had opposed, but one part of my reason was slightly invalid, and I was politely corrected by Dweller. I still don't see anything special coming from the answers, and I would like to see a more full on answer to number 3. By this I mean something like "Yes, I was involved in conflicts <..> but now..", which does not seem to be said. I would like to see more of an answer here rather than directing to other places or previous RfAs, and answering himself. Jack?! 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I'm going neutral, which I rarely do, because I see both sides.Sumoeagle179 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral per Dlohcierekim's very well-stated support, and per RockMFR and Chick Bowen's opposition (and per working/arguing with him for 2+ years!). Might change, based on currently unanswered questions 15-21. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral (changed to Support) I really do want to support this candidate but don't have enough to go on to do so. Few comments:

   + I believe his work with Auroranorth was a net benefit to the project, and I admired TT's patience and good faith throughout that process.

   - On principle I think in general that "admin coaching" is not really necessary - none of the admins I work with every day in the Australian project went through it, nor did I - good admins tend to be self-selecting, so to speak, and are able to learn from observation and from others' actions both good and bad.

   - Some of the opposes in this and the last suggest an editor who at times has battled issues within themselves and may not yet be ready, although in a check of contribs I find there are very few problems recently.

   The key things I look for in an admin are - can they get on with others? do their actions suggest problems down the track? do they understand policy, can they understand the reasons behind the policies (often key to ensuring the spirit and not strictly the letter is enforced) and can they pick good edits from bad ones? If I can see evidence in a positive direction on these I may well be swayed to support. Orderinchaos 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. neutral leaning towards oppose The concerns brought up by Xoloz and Radiant prevent me from supporting. However, I'm not so worried as to oppose outright at this point in time. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Sorry, swayed by some of the opposers, particularly Sarah. Will be glad to support next time if the remaining concerns fade. Húsönd 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral; I see improvement, but I also see very bad reasons for wanting the tools— probably not power hunger, but certainly "tools for the sake of the tools". — Coren ^(talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.