Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Neutral because of Q5
Dorftrottel (talk | contribs)
14,762 edits
→‎Oppose: q to Kurt
Line 104: Line 104:
#'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. Also, this is his fifth self-nom in about 15 months. He wants it, obviously. That's a bad thing. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. Also, this is his fifth self-nom in about 15 months. He wants it, obviously. That's a bad thing. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
#:As if on cue... [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
#:As if on cue... [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
#:Kurt, why don't you get a wife? [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Dorftrottel|ask]]) 03:39,&nbsp;[[April 9]],&nbsp;200<!--DT-->8


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 03:39, 9 April 2008

The Transhumanist

Voice your opinion (talk page) (25/21/4); Scheduled to end 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) - Just checking in, to see if you trust me. 37,000+ edits, and I haven't broken Wikipedia yet.  :) The Transhumanist    21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: To start, whatever existing admins request I help them with.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Wikipedia's user interface (menus, tables of contents, directories, etc.). Finding information is as important as the information itself. The structure also shows how the topics relate to each other.
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: Nothing major for a couple years. It's all in the previous RfAs.

Optional Question from Ultraexactzz

4. Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am unwilling or unable to read through your previous RfAs. Briefly, why do you wish to be an administrator, and - as a follow up - what would you point to as an indication that you can be reasonably expected to use the tools in a manner that benefits the project? Put another way, Why should I support you as an admin? Thanks in advance, and best of luck to you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm simply volunteering to help. Nothing more. Nothing less. You should support me because I'll do a good job, indicated by the good job I've done with the tools I currently have. The Transhumanist    23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Elkman:

5. What kinds of tasks do you plan to perform as an admin? (For example, closing AFDs, speedily deleting articles, blocking users, reverting vandalism, and the like. This isn't an all-inclusive list.)
A: I plan to leave that up to other admins. They know what they need help with the most, so I'll defer to their judgement. I have helped more than a handful of users become admins, and I've worked with other admins as well - they are familiar with my performance. I'm sure they will keep me busy from the start. The Transhumanist    00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Could you give us some examples of non-administrative actions that you've done that would give us guidance into how you would perform such administrative tasks? (For example, voicing opinions in AFDs, tagging articles for speedy deletion, reporting vandals to WP:AIV, vandalism reverts, and the like.)
A: I've participated in AfD quite a lot. Here's a recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic Canada topics. I also recently made a request at DRV to re-create from scratch a list that had been deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 10 (Lists of fictional topics). I'm waiting to acquire a particular tool before I re-create the list. The Transhumanist    00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • Um, huh? What's the purpose of this nomination? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Transhumanist's answer to the fourth question is very good. It's about what adminship really should be, not really much of a big deal. Do we trust The Transhumanist to do fine? I do. Does the nom look crappy? You bet it does. I wish the opposers reconsider, especially the ones that say this is like a "n00b nom" or a "joke". But the points about power hunger (fifth RfA) are interesting. Maxim(talk) 01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support, though that's a crap nom, if you have to do it again make it better, good user though, and very helpful.--Phoenix-wiki 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support Although I know that The Transhumanist is an excellent, dilligent user, 5 RfAs makes me wary. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support MBisanz talk 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — the nom's a little short, but I was looking at your talk page a minute ago, wondering "is he an admin now"? I think you can be trusted :-). paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per nom and answers, fabulous editor, highly trustworthy. 37,000 edits was the deal breaker for me :) Majorly (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why yes, yes of course. Will be a net-benefit for sure. Dorftrottel (criticise) 22:12, April 8, 2008
    As before: He is not going to misuse the tools, everything else is negligible. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 00:18, April 9, 2008
  7. Support - Ok, the answers aren't all that descriptive, but, it boils down to trust in the end. I asked myself, "do I trust this candidate?", and invariably the answer was "yes". The user boosts morale constantly, is very prolific (even though a lot of the contributions use scripts and what not) and has the requisite experience. Their attitude is positively winsome, which is something that is very important to me in an administrator. If we can have rough around the edges, we can have a little levity. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, although I would suggest that TT suspend his RfA and write out a proper nomination statement. Anthøny 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I think you'd be a good candidate, despite your immature approach to this and your previous RFAs. I understand that you're frustrated with the process, and you even have a right to be, but you're smart enough to know you're shooting yourself in the foot here. If instead of these two immature nominations you had just waited, you'd probably be passing now. Since I think you'd be a good administrator, I think it's a shame that it's been approached this way. --JayHenry (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. TT is one of the more hardworking editors around. A no-nonsense editor. Knows policy. Knows wikipedia. Knows how to irritate people :-) TT is the one editor whom I truly was surprised to discover wasn't an admin. Good luck. 3 + 2 is the charm. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support This user never has given up on his dream- to be an Administrator. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Been around a while, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker. Why not? --Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. support! Being an admin is serious business, and you seem like a serious guy who can seriously be serious about his business. Seriously. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Adminship is no big deal. Transhumanist is experienced. SpencerT♦C 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He has shown himself to be helpful and encouraging and polite. Has been around a long while and always engages politely with people. The evidence is that he is trustworthy. Yes the application form hasn't presented the candidate in the best light, but looking at the genuine evidence of how much The Transhumanist is willing to give to the project and to others on the project I can only feel that he will make good use of the tools. SilkTork *YES! 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support again as with his 3rd RfA. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Somewhat weak support. I have continually supported you in your requests for adminship, but the last two that have gone through have been puzzlingly odd. If you would have simply not had either of these, I believe that the community would have promoted you before now. My suggestion is to take a date ~5 months in the future and not submit another RFA until then or later. Your over-eagerness and strange last two RFAs (including this one) have created mistrust where there should have been none. Discipline yourself and prove to the community that they should have given you the tools a long time ago. With regards, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Why not? - Competent and trustworthy, no reason to oppose. Xdenizen (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will make a good admin despite his refusal to follow RfA etiquette. Epbr123 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. More reasonable than not in my experience with him in AfDs and he even made my list of nice Wikipedians. Plus, he's never been blocked and has over 30,000 edits. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support. I don't see a single reason to oppose. If this was his first RfA, he'd pass almost unanimously. Whether or not there's been others is irrelevant to me. He's willing to help out, he's proven his trustworthiness and technical skills, why the hell not? Give the man a darn mop already. Tan | 39 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Substance over presentation. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, trustworthy and skilled user. FusionMix 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Agreed with Espresso Addict. ṜέđṃάяķvίʘĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support It is time to give him the mop. A dedicated user! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. From the nomination and lack of answers to the (technically optional, but in reality mandatory) questions lead me to believe that this is either a joke or some sort of editor review that will garner more attention than a regular one. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You are taking the piss aren't you? Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This user apparently wants to be an admin very badly, has not sufficiently articulated the reasons for this desire (which is important, given that his initial reasons for wanting the tools were evidently not good ones), and is piling on RFA after RFA without apparently taking previous opposes to heart (and without putting much apparent effort into the self-noms). At this point, I would suggest that he go a year or so without applying for adminship, ponder why he wants the tools and, if he considers these reasons good, come back then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The concerns rasied in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 4 (which, sadly, I opposed as well) have not been addressed, and this RfA does not alleviate those concerns. I agree that The Transhumanist should wait at least 6 months (but preferably 9-12 months) before requesting adminship again. Acalamari 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What Spartaz said. – Steel 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose and strangely, I'm the first non-admin to do so. I feel that this user, although they have a positive effect on Wikipedia, is just a little too eager to become an admin, among other concerns. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - 5th RfA in 10 months and 6th within 14 months, and a self-nomination at that. The nomination shows complete contempt for the community, giving those who spend their free time absolutely no information on which to make a decision. Useful advice handed down by other experienced users at previous requests for adminship has been completely disregarded which instantly makes me uncomfortable - if they can't follow advice about something that won't break Wikipedia, what are they going to do with advice that will break Wikipedia. Finally, and I hate to say this, but I get the feeling that this is nothing but a sledgehammer attack to gain adminship, the normal route of waiting, earning trust, submitting an RfA sensibly and filling in the request properly has been completely circumvented and it's not a battle between the user and the community to try and gain adminship, and I'm really not comfortable with that. I'll be extremly annoyed if I see this user here again within the next 6 months and probably within the next 12 months. Nick (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, sorry. You're a good user, but for someone who's had 4 RfAs already and so often dwells into the responsibilities of admins, you really could've presented an RfA that wouldn't look so much like a newbie's. Also, you fail to mention how have you improved since your last RfA and how have you addressed the unequivocal opposition expressed thereby. Húsönd 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, for a clear lack of common sense. I hope you realize that people usually take time to review candidates, and your nomination, as it is currently written, is obviously not going to convince anyone who's opposed in your four previous rfas. Therefore you're just wasting everyone's time in order to whore for attention. Please consider withdrawing this nom. - Bobet 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think your contributions have been extremely helpful to wikipedia, no less. However, I do not see why you couldn't spend just a few minutes making this RFA seem less like a "let's see if this works" one, and more like a "I've improved since my previous RFAs, I think I'm worthy of your trust" one. Also, your answers to the question lead me to think that you don't need the tools (you say you won't expand the RFA, because you prefer to spend time improving wikipedia); you don't need to be an admin to keep doing what you've done, and, looking at your previous records, you seem to prefer not to change. In short, judging by your answers to the questions, and to the concerns of users (not just on this RFA), I think you don't really care much about the outcome. · AndonicO Hail! 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –Pomte 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Is this a joke? Edit count and "not breaking anything" is not exactly a reason for me to feel safe handing over the mop. This strangely feels like a mirror of your previous RfA. Has nothing been improved? Tiptoety talk 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The candidate's tendency to argue and rebut nearly every opinion offered by other editors in discussions, including the five (so far) Rfas, is a strong factor in my opposition. — Athaenara ✉ 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Um, nothing has been done to address previous opposition from the 4 prior RfAs, The answers to the questions and the nom would lead me to think that the user is a newbie if I didn't know better. I agree with Nick above, and also question the "power hungry" remark from the 4th RfA (I know why you made it, but that was improper), and also the blatant disregard to RfA etiquette (The nom and answers to the questions are woefully inadequate). I cannot in good conscious support this user in any RfA for at least a year because of the frequency of these RfAs, I recommend that you wait at least six months and until someone other than yourself offers to nominates you. -MBK004 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)-MBK004 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I haven't repeated the things opposed to (referring to non-RfA-related opposes). I resigned as admin coach for all of my nine students because someone complained at RfA about my being an admin coach, even though the instructions for that department specifically states that non-admins can be admin coaches. So that oppose has been addressed. I stopped being bureaucratic, but the casual approach is appreciated far less (see the nom, above).  :) But I don't get many complaints outside of RfA, so it's not clear what the opposer meant by "too formal and bureaucratic". The opposer dodged all queries, on and off of RfA, so I've therefore striven to maintain a balance, and have worked more in article space. So that oppose has been addressed. The vast majority of the opposes at my RfAs have to do with the RfAs themselves. People seem to forget they are here at RfA to judge people's performance. I don't believe judging RfA presentation and formatting has anything to do with performance in the encyclopedia or in the community. But it appears that's just me. I have simply volunteered to help out as an admin. If you don't want to accept my offer, that's your privelege. I'll continue to offer again in the future. The Transhumanist    01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding. I'll take a closer look and if I see fit, revise my !vote/prose accordingly. Until then, this oppose stands. -MBK004 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck some remarks and added more relevant ones. Unfortunately my oppose still stands. -MBK004 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. This looks like some sort of joke and/or editor review. Also, his reasoning in his previous RFA, "Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship..." makes me increadibly warry. Spinach Dip 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in response to a spammer who summarily opposed all self-noms "on the grounds that it shows inherent hunger for power" or something similar. I simply beat him to the punch. A couple people got it.  :) The Transhumanist    01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You consider Kurt a spammer? Tiptoety talk 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose- Per my comments under Neutral. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose You seem a little too eager for the mop, IMHO. Plus this RfA isn't very well thought out, as far as the introduction, and this one is too soon after your last one. ArcAngel (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I agree with Nick. --Agüeybaná 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Nick and AndonicO. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Reluctant Oppose The user, while definitely a good contributor, has already had four admin attempts to date and gives minimal information in his answers to questions for us to make a decision on. I wish that I could vote support, but unfortunately, I can't. =( --Liempt (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Bobet. At this point, the candidate's impaired sense of timing, lack of tact, and severe impatience do rise to the level where it can be said that he seems to lack common sense. He should wait at least one year before reapplication here, in light of his inability to heed prior requests that he wait six months. Xoloz (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Pretty much know what you do on Wikipedia, so let's start with some praises. I like how you finally overhaul the list of basic topics. Ok, that's it for praises, now to the opposing reason. In your last RfA, your statement said "Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship. The Transhumanist 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)". I think that is honest, but we don't need power-hungry admins. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain that it wasn't an honest declaration about the candidate, but a reference to a certain user that opposes all self-nominations at RfA as evidence of "power hunger". Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Also, this is his fifth self-nom in about 15 months. He wants it, obviously. That's a bad thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As if on cue... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt, why don't you get a wife? Dorftrottel (ask) 03:39, April 9, 2008
Neutral
  1. Neutral - It doesn't look like a great deal of effort has been put into this RfA. I've seen this user around, but if he can't take the time to answer the questions and give a more substantial statement, why should I take the time to review his contributions? --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you probably guessed, I don't place much stock in the RfA process, and I prefer to put my effort into Wikipedia itself and help users. You don't need my help in coming to a sound decision. Simply browse my contributions and ask yourself: "Will he abuse the tools?" and "Will he use the tools skillfully?" The Transhumanist    22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I like the spirit of this user - I'm waiting to see answers to questions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I'm with Wisdom on this. Good user, lots of RfAs. Seems like a half-baked effort here for #5. What have you done since 1,2,3,4, and now 5 to warrant a passing RfA? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a dedicated and conscientious contributor. Isn't that enough? The Transhumanist    22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, yes. For RfA #1. But 4 times before this, the community, for one reason or another, has decided that you shouldn't be given the admin buttons. I'm not saying I'll never support, I might even support this RfA. I'm simply asking what have you done differently from your previous attempts at adminship to allay the concerns of other editors? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here on Wikipedia day after day, month after month, solving problems, and not creating them. The only relevant concerns are trust and competence. And I address those concerns every day by doing my best. The Transhumanist    23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning support Transhumanist, running so soon? I can attest to the abilities of this user, but I will remain neutral until the questions are answered. --Sharkface217 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done The Transhumanist    22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per Wisdom and Keeper. I'd prefer longer and a bit more specific answers, though. I am very willing to change this vote. SpencerT♦C 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Witnesses will serve you better. Simply wait, and others will inform you of everything you need to know about me to make your decision. The Transhumanist    22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to support, as adminship is "no big deal". Anyway, Transhumanist has a lot of experience anyway. SpencerT♦C 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral pending further effort. If the candidate does not take RfA seriously, she/he should not expect respondents to take her/his candidacy seriously. Skomorokh 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I take Wikipedia seriously. I think that's easy to see. The Transhumanist    22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being that this is your 5th RfA, it is quite clearly not easy for the rest of us to see. I'm sure it's not intended, but you seem a bit dismissive. Maybe you can help us see how seriously you take Wikipedia by taking this request seriously. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do take this request seriously. The Transhumanist    23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending additional comments, and responses to questions. Concerns about your seriousness regarding RfA and Keeper76's comments regarding the addressing of the issues that kept your 4 previous RfAs from succeeding keep me from supporting. Cheers, Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After further reviewing previous RfA's, your comment about "power hunger" makes me seriously weary about this RfA. Changed to Oppose Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per answer to question 5 (which, now that I think about it, was pretty close to question 1). I'm going to have to review The Transhumanist's contributions and guess at the possible admin tasks he might undertake and how he might address them. (As a side note, I've been an admin since September and I haven't done all of the admin tasks yet. I specialize in a few areas.) I don't have time to do this detailed review right now, though -- it might take a while yet. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_5&oldid=204376483"