Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2


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

The Transhumanist
 Final (36/36/7); Ended Fri, 25 May 2007 03:05 UTC

- Co-nominated by Dweller, AGK, The Rambling Man, and Magnus animum.

We are delighted to co-nominate The Transhumanist for adminship...

Co-nomination by Dweller: The Transhumanist had an unsuccessful nomination some months ago (Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist). Many of the objections raised followed a deletion debate about his "admin school", which at the time was controversial, and The Transhumanist's actions at that time.

Since then, admin school has become the very successful "Virtual Classroom", which operates in a spirit of mutual development, where TT himself exudes no ego and has produced some excellent admins (TRM and Anthony)... as well as me (sorry, I've lowered the bar).

The Transhumanist is civil, helpful and intently interested in developing the skills of others. He played a significant role in the Main Page redesign and has played an important role in the distinctly undervalued Welcoming Committee and is active in dispute resolution.

I strongly recommend this user as a trustworthy member of the community, who will work for the betterment of the Project.'' --Dweller 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by AGK: The Transhumanist (TT) is without a doubt one of Wikipedia's most truly influential, energetic and most unbelievably tireless editors I have had the privilege and the honor to meet; his work around Wikipedia outstrips many of our finest contributors, and what is more he is always looking to expand his contributions' horizons.

His work - at the Virtual Classroom, at the WP:WELCOME revamp, ... I could go on forever - is truly astounding, and what is more his knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is comprehensive and sound.

TT is an intelligent person, which is conveyed in his communication and the quality of his article edits; I have every confidence in his ability to wield the mop, and I hope that the community will see fit to do what is long overdue: mop The Transhumanist, and grant him the tools he has helped so many achieve ~ Anthøny 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by The Rambling Man: I find it difficult to add much to what has already been said other than the contributions The Transhumanist makes to the encyclopedia are priceless. His production line of featured articles and, more recently, successful admin candidates (of which I'm proud to be one) have enriched Wikipedia. Provision of the mop to such a qualified candidate will make Wikipedia a better place. The Rambling Man 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Magnus animum: It is my humble pleasure to co-nominate The Transhumanist for adminship. I first came along his path when I was still Steptrip and looking at his userpage design workshop. Upon further investigation, I found the many pages he has created such as his Virtual classroom, tasks page, and many essays. If you have read even one of them, you will find that he is very active as an article-writer, and works very hard to make Wikipedian life more enjoyable. For these reasons, I believe that the community can entrust him with the extra workload that is sysoppery. Thank you. ~ Magnus animuM &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and gratefully accept. The Transhumanist 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I think I've finally found my niche. I'd like to continue training sysadmins, and develop my ability to do so. It would improve my frame of reference if I had access to the tools, and would enable me to edit and author lessons about them more effectively.  I'm also interested in writing tips (like the tip of the day tips) for admins.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: The user interface, navigation aids, and help resources. I hope I've helped to make Wikipedia easier to find one's way around in and to use.  Toward these ends I've done a lot of work on menus, navigation bars, contents pages and topic lists, directories, navigation templates, tips, help pages, help departments, welcome messages, and see also sections.  Of all of these I'm most pleased with the Community Bulletin Board and the Lists of basic topics.  I've also helped on Wikipedia's look and feel, and I'm quite proud of that. But not so proud that I freak out anymore when somebody else changes it - now I like watching it evolve over time.  It's sort of like a kaleidoscope in slow mo.  Wikipedians tend to build upon and improve what has come before, and I've come to trust in that.


 * 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: Oh yes. Too many actually.  I blew my stack and had a full wiki-meltdown in the Spring of 2006, over the community portal overhaul, which landed me in an RfC.  It took me a long time to recover from that.  I hid under other usernames for months, but eventually regained the courage to face everyone openly.  I was greatly impacted by the moral support others gave me, the general acceptance Wikipedians have for each other, and their willingness to forgive.  It's hard to remain embarrassed for long in such an environment, which is one of the reasons I love it here.  So I've been trying my best to help others overcome similar problems, and prefer to coach users who have failed RfAs.


 * I've also been known to be too flamboyant in debates, though have toned it down to normalcy since the last episode last November (in the admin school deletion debate, in which I stormed out by striking out all my input, which on retrospect was pretty immature).


 * The way I deal with conflicts now is simply to not fret it. There are multitudes of ways to get things done on Wikipedia, and many angles from which to approach a problem or goal.  When one path is blocked, I refrain from fighting, perhaps let things calm down for awhile, and then try another approach.  I've found that in one form a page may be overwhelmingly objected to, while in another form it becomes highly accepted.  So I try solutions in different namespaces, and in different forms.  For example, lists rejected in the main namespace may find a home in the portal namespace, since lists are part of the integral design of the portal substitution template (and portals often lack in content and need such material).  I had a problem with a navigation template once (in the Fall of 2005), and engaged in an edit war over the links it was to include.  I finally just let the other user have the page, and created a list that included all the same links which I could add to, to my heart's content.  Wikipedia is a big place.  There's something for everyone here.


 * But sometimes there's no way to go around. In those cases, patience is the best solution.  Like when someone overrides the established consensus and forces his edits to a page, reverting any reversions made to it.  I just stay calm.  I'm here for the long haul, so I can fix it later.  I almost always find a way.  There's no reason to lose control.  Simply look for other ways, or for other things to do in the meantime.  I now take to heart the message on the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I like to imagine Wikipedia is loosely based upon): Don't Panic.


 * Additional response 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC): The "full wiki-meltdown" mentioned above, which occurred over a year ago, consisted of me posting the exploding thermometer from the stress-o-meter in a rather emotional message (a cry for help) at the help desk, and not responding to the RfC that was started on me due to my direct edits of the Community Portal. I felt that if I answered the RfC, I would be hard pressed to keep up with the 5 or so people who would no doubt barage me with questions and criticisms.  And I was feeling a bit isolated.  Those individuals felt that tinkering with the graphical layout of a high-traffic page was innappropriate by me, because users were inconvenienced by my moving stuff all around - a sign that I didn't have a feel for what the community would consense to, which is true -- those who did have the feel could and did correctly predict what changes wouldn't cause any complaints, and therefore could and did make such changes whenever and wherever they felt like doing so.  Oh, how I wanted to be one of them!  With respect to the Community Portal, my detractors felt that the approach taken on the main page should be practiced, that is, to create a draft and get community approval on the new design to move it over to replace the existing page.  At the time I disagreed, since the prior project had taken months, and I believed that it could be done much faster (days), and that direct edits to a page were in line with Wikipedia's slogan around that time (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit).  I also believed that keeping such an effort visible would attract more people to that project to help complete the page (it was a fairly large job).  Ironically, I was just a couple hours away from finishing it (in the style of Directory which was actually part of the Community Portal version I was designing), when someone protected the page.  They even created a guideline based on that incident: see Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls.  So now you know the fiasco I've been trhying to live down ever since.


 * Yes, I'm embarrassed by the whole thing, yes, I feel like it is a huge anchor around my neck, and yes I could have started over with a new account and could have been an administrator by now under another nym -- but I decided to face the community and make ammends rather than sneak around it. It's been difficult, and I expect to get flack for my past actions for some time to come, but I'm ready and willing to take it.


 * Since those interesting times, I have acquired the feel for the Wikipedia project which I lacked back then. I recently directly and unilaterally made a sweeping upgrade to a dozen or so key pages, upgrading their graphical layout (such as here), and adding navigation bars (which I designed) to the tops of all of them, including adding these nav bars to the highly trafficked community portal and the main help page, and received not a single complaint from anyone.  None.  I strung together a top end for two of wikipedia's namespaces, adjusting the pages to match (where I could), and nobody complained.  I can now safely say I understand Wikipedia.


 * There has been some concern, that if I had the admin tools, that I'd go mucking about with the user interface in the MediaWiki namespace. I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia's user interface (menus, nav bars, the sidebar redesign), and none of the changes I've made have been detrimental to Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with when and how the proposal process should be applied to make such changes.  You have nothing to worry about.  Through the proposal process, I pushed for and finally helped get "Contents" added to the navigation menu in the sidebar, and the various menu items on the sidebar rearranged.  That is about as integral to the Wikipedia project as you can get.  The appropriate sysadmin action with respect to the sidebar and its menus, and the permanent interface, is to implement the changes decided by consensus in such proposals.  Getting back to the MediaWiki namespace, I've looked it over in detail, and there isn't much there that can be improved.  Actually, there isn't much there at all.  Almost all of the pages in there have cryptic phrases or single words, which I can't make heads or tails of anyways.  The whole issue simply got blown out of proportion.  Now that the sidebar menu is done, the only thing left about the user interface that I'd like to see changed is the message that is displayed when a new user logs on for the first time.  But that would best be handled by submitting a proposal.  And I couldn't find that message in the MediaWiki namespace anyways.  I think it's in the software.


 * There has also been some concern that I want adminship for adminship's sake. That I have no clear conception of what I will use the tools for.  So what.  What do you think I would do with the tools, block you?  Protect your user talk page?  Delete half of Wikipedia?  Come on.  Get real.  I'd help in the best way I could find, most likely in response to a request or invitation.  Would I sit on my hands and treat the tools as trophies at the top of the page?  I think you know me better than that.  What is most likely to happen is something like this:  I get a message from Quiddity saying "Hi TT, the such and such department and its backlogs could really use an overhaul..."  Guess what happened the last time he sent me a message like that...  I did what he asked.


 * Note that I have never, nor would I ever, take malicious actions against this community nor its works. I have never vandalized a page, and have always tried to lend a helping hand when asked.  In the few cases when I was too busy to help personally, I have referred the requester to a resource that I believed could help.


 * Optional question from
 * 4. What are your views on the legitimacy of using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia?
 * A. According to policy, it's allowable, as long as its done in a straightforward way (fully disclosed), but it is "discouraged" in most cases, because of the tendency to abuse such accounts. Manipulative or devious sockpuppetry (double voting, etc.) and hiding from accountability are not legitimate uses of alternative accounts.   I hid for awhile, and I can tell you from experience that it's no fun giving up credit for past contributions, and you risk being spotted anyways if you edit your favorite articles.  Don't hide.  It's not worth it.  Admit your mistakes, move on, and rebuild your reputation.  The Wikipedia community is a very forgiving environment, and almost everyone wants here is to get along.  After you've gotten used to it, Wikipedia's form of collaboration becomes second nature.  It's easy.  Getting back to uses of alternate accounts, an example of a legitimate use of one would be for running a bot, or for using a semi-automated editor like AWB (for which a seperate account is recommended on the bot policy page).  Make it a variation of your main account name so that people know who you are when using it.  I have an additional account (User:The Transhumanist (AWB)) which I use for repetitive editing and macro work, but I haven't used it much lately.  -TT


 * Optional question from
 * 5. Wikipedia has many core policies, and a great number of guidelines and essays. What do you feel that the roles of each of those "tiers" is in the community, and to what extent should they be obeyed?  I'm looking for specific examples here, both of policies and situations (can be hypothetical).
 * A.


 * Another optional question from
 * 6. One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:OWN. How do you feel that an admin should use this, and what are your personal feelings on it?  Again, I'm looking for examples and hypothetical situations in which you'd act as an admin with this policy.
 * A. I consider this a trick question. And a nice one.  I wouldn't "use" this policy as an admin.  I wouldn't use admin tools at all unless the situation spiraled out of control in violation of other policies, such as WP:3RR. First I would apply all remedies available to me as an editor.  Based on my personal observations, cases of pure ownership are rare, and I would expect to find a zealot or prolific editor instead.  I can relate to them, and would start by asking questions to ascertain their level of understanding of the relevant policies.  Because they might not realize what they are doing is against the rules, or why what they are doing is the wrong approach.  Yes, I'd slip into the role of coach!  Especially in the case of beginners, problems are usually due to ignorance of the rules, or caused by dysfunctional communication.  The solution here is to increase awareness and improve communications, which I believe I've gotten fairly good at - I'd see if I could pinpoint the cause of the misunderstanding, which would entail becoming familiar with the subject matter of the article.  I'd also see if I could boost participation on the page, to bring more people to the process of building a consensus there, and/or guide all who are involved in how to do so.  If these things didn't work, and the person accused of ownership defied consensus, then I'd resort to the dispute resolution process, and would either start an RfC based on the issue of WP:OWN or suggest to the others involved that they do so.  I'd monitor the process and the page(s) to make sure things remained civil and undisrupted, stepping in to enforce 3RR, etc.  My main role would be as a fellow editor, and as an experienced Wikipedian I would try to make sure everyone understood the policies and procedures involved.  You don't need to be an admin to use WP:OWN.  The use of admin powers are more explicitly covered in other policies such as WP:BLOCK and WP:PROTECT, so that WP:OWN need not be used as the basis for the use of admin powers at all.  Upon reading the policy, you'll see that it is an exercise in handholding. And since admin action isn't warranted solely upon this policy, I have provided no examples or hypothetical situations in which admin action would be applied.  Any Wikipedian could apply this policy. -TT


 * Optional questions from
 * 7. Do you believe that your lack of Admin access hampers your ability to edit Wikipedia effectively? Yes or no is fine.
 * Yes. By actually using the tools, I could begin writing articles on their use and application.  I would no doubt gain insights into how to use them effectively and into the problems that arise which wouldn't occur to you if you didn't have them.  Some say that you must have a need before having the tools, and I simply do not understand this because I had the other tools of Wikipedia (the power to edit, etc.) long before I felt the need to use them.  I browsed Wikipedia for 9 months casually before I finally started editing, and look how that snowballed!  I imagine I'll get sucked in in a similar way on some admin-related activity.  Also, I tend to go where others ask for help, or where someone suggests that my efforts are needed.  For example, I'm mediating now, because a mediator asked me months ago for help on a dispute over an article called Paytakaran.  I had never heard of it.  But I took on the assignment, and I've been semi-successful in breaking the deadlock and moving the article toward a version both sides may be content with.  But it has been going at a snail's pace.  I could finish the article myself in a few hours, but I can't because I've pledged neutrality.  Aaaargh!  And then there's the Welcoming committee.  I had never planned on having anything to do with it.  But then Quiddity came to me and said the magic phrase "it needs an overhaul, would you take a look at it please", or something to that effect, and I was all over it.  I made a good friend there (Anthony), smoothed over a dispute while I was at it, and got a lesson in advanced template-encoding by Audacity.  So yes, not having the admin tools does hamper me in expanding in a particular direction.  Why do people climb mountains?  Because they are there.  The same principle applies here.
 * 8. Building on your answers in 6. and 7., would you only use the admin tools to solve an issue that you had been watching, or would you go out of your way to find articles that need help from an admin? The Administrators page factoid notes that there are .27 admins per 1000 users, which is a terribly low number, so any help is welcome - but I would like to know where you wish to focus your efforts. Secondly, will you do the sort of general janitorial work that Wikipedia needs, or are you going to exert a concerted effort on certain projects/issues? Note that I am not trying to indict you for having "pet projects," and am merely trying to gain a picture of what you envison your role as an Admin to be. --Edwin Herdman 06:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a funny feeling that I'll be pulled in several directions by several admins wishing to show me the admin ropes or desiring my assistance. Also, my former students and current co-coaches probably have plans for me they haven't told me about.  :-)  And since they've had a head start, I guess it will be their turn to coach me!  But the first thing I plan on doing is wrapping up the Paytakaran dispute.  I had spread myself too thin, and my participation waned - so I've told the guys there I'd concentrate my wiki-efforts on their case.  I'm in the process of attracting editors to join the debate so that a consensus can be formed that breaks the deadlock.  You are all welcome to join in.  It's surprisingly technical, dealing with references that are centuries old.  Quite fascinating.  You might enjoy it.
 * I am not qualified, given that it is technical and furthermore the sources are literally Greek to me. I also feel my question has not been answered in sufficient detail. Could you go into further detail as to how you would use Admin access to "break the deadlock" in this instance (without compromising your neutrality, of course)? --Edwin Herdman 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I now believe this question was answered in a satisfactory fashion above. Good deal. --Edwin Herdman 12:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from
 * 9. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * I love Wikipedia. -TT 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See The Transhumanist's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion


 * As a side issue, 5 co-noms (and counting it appears) is absolutely ridiculous. One nom will do guys - there's nothing written up there that one person couldn't have written. Feel free to add your support in those nicely numbered spaces under the heading subtly titled "Support". I have yet to understand (or even be offered a good reason) why so many nominations are needed for anyone. WjBscribe 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't really see why it matters; the guy has made some friends, and they want to go a little bit beyond " Support ~ ~ ", and tell the community why TT is such a worthwhile candidate. Objecting to the number of co-noms is slightly picky, is all I'm saying ~ Anthøny  00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to oppose someone for it (hence why my comment is here). I'm just remarking on a growing trend for large numbers of co-noms. It seems to me that people can phrase their support to convey how strongly they respect the candidate quite adequately. As to your "the guy has made some friends", I think you've pinned down what's really bothering me about the large number of co-noms. RfA is not a popularity contest or a time for peoples' Wikifriends to show how much they love them. It isn't for the Community to endorse that someone is a good guy. Its simply a process to confirm that someone is trustworthy and has the relevant knowledge and experience to make use of some extra buttons. WjBscribe 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed – and would a user have so many friends and admirers across Wikipedia if they did not have those qualities? ~ Anthøny 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't need to be an exemplary user to have friends. – Steel 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just one of those things that makes RFA more of a popularity contest. Having lots of friends doesn't strongly correlate with being a good admin, the latter being the trait RFA should detect. Some of the best admin candidates quietly do maintenence and write great articles on "boring" topics and don't attract much attention, and I see them dissuaded from RFA because they don't think they're popular enough. Co-noms are just a part of a bigger picture that makes RFA more of a spectacle than a process, but as this RFA is a textbook example of, these things can contribute to people running so they can pass RFA, not so they can get access to the admin tools and do better work. --W.marsh 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course RfA is a popularity contest; when promotions are solely awarded on the basis of three or more editors liking you for every one who doesn't, it's hard to imagine otherwise. That several people at once think someone would make a good admin is significant. It's no sillier than presuming that failure to hit a certain percentage of anti-vandal reversions or "enough" edit summaries makes for a poor admin, but a great many Oppose voters are entirely comfortable with making arguments that shallowly considered.   RGTraynor  03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's a lot of history here, and I'm unfamiliar with most of it. But as a relative outsider I just want to say that I find ironic some of the names in the oppose section that are opposing because the Transhumanist is "too interested in bureaucracy." The oppose section already contains a rather large number of editors who I think would fairly be characterized as some of the more entrenched members of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. The difference only is that The Transhumanist has no delusions about his interest in the bureaucracy. Truly I mean no disrespect, but I want to offer my perspective that it feels to me like there's a "We gotta keep this guy out of our club" mentality in the oppose section because adminship is a big deal. This appears to be a hard-working, well-meaning, reasonable, honest and dedicated editor who is being torpedoed for reasons that, to an outsider like me, are totally opaque. --JayHenry 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've filled in some of the history for you above, in an additional response to Question #3. The Transhumanist  20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per User:RGTraynor I hadn't realsied adminship was a promotion. I'd allways felt it was the other way actually. Pedro |  Chat 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of both. In one way you need to have the general trust of the community, so it appears to be a high power kind of job, but it really is nothing special at all. Admins are servants of Wikipedia, nothing else. I've said this before, but promotion is the wrong word to use.  Majorly  (talk | meet) 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) In anticipation of TT's acceptance, I support as co-nom. --Dweller 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)¶
 * 2) Restless and valuable contribution to the Wikipedia community and to articles. Very considerate and helpful in dealing with other users. The ideal admin. Cacycle 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)¶
 * 3) Strong Support - The user has been helping other editors and has been very active and he is long overdue :).. Cometstyles 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)¶
 * 4) Strongest Possible Support&mdash;as co-nominator and close friend of one of the greatest Wikipedians we have ;-) good luck, TT ~ Anthøny 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)¶
 * 5) Strong support Wtf, The Transhumanist isn't an admin??? I have to say that is one of the most shocking things I've heard since I've been here! Well, The Transhumanist has been one of the best admin coaches I've seen, he certainly knows what it takes to be an administrator, and his virtual classroom has developed some excellent lessons which he has helped guide prospective admins into writing. It also shows his understanding of policy - which is second to none. His helpful attitude, coupled with his dedication to the project and knowledge of policy will ensure he is one of our best administrators.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Call this a protest support.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, (edit conflict) woah, an admin coach without even being an admin? Now that takes skill! :) Good luck, Transhumanist!  *Cremepuff 222*  21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I was really thinking about nominating TT sooner or later; surprised really, that he wasn't one (admin coach and everything). To get to my point... very strong support!! Evilclown93 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems a much-improved editor since the previous RfA back in November. (aeropagitica) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Go on then but no more than one nomination please. 4 is really pushing it.  Majorly  (talk | meet) 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong co-nom (late, but not too late) support - an epic contributor, an editor who has learned and developed from previous experiences, a humble, creative, honest and approachable kind-of-guy. Good luck! The Rambling Man 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support: As co-nomination; I thought he was one. ~ Magnus animuM &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Innovative and knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy.--Danaman5 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support - great community player. Tons of behind-the-scenes hard work. I see the 'admin school' matter as being well in the past at this stage and I've seen nothing but civility from this editor. I like the honesty behind Q3, too - A l is o n  ☺ 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. In his early days, Transhumanist did some wacky things, and seemed over-eager for adminship, which made me come to this RfA with skepticism.  Looking over his work, he has improved incredibly, and does demonstrate great industry and dedication.  His fundamental outlook, heavy on community-involvement and Wiki-love, has never been in doubt.  I'm convinced he'll do a fine job with the mop. :) Xoloz 22:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support The VC is exactly the kind of work that we need here. I have been associated with it for about a month and have TH to be nothing but an encouragement. Sure, there were problems in the past but from what I see he has straighten that all out and has been very forthcoming here about those issues. I would further say that we do need more admins especially those with TH' work ethic. 65.13.115.43 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (I forgot to sign in) Jody B talk 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. My impression is of a considerate, patient, good humoured, wise and profilic contributor. Admirable qualities for an admin. Johnlp 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support Takes time to help others. the_undertow talk  22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support Friendly, helpful, hard-working, probably overqualified for this! GDonato (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: From your work at the Virtual Classroom, I could have sworn you were an administrator already. You are an excellent editor. Good luck! Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Oh yeah. All the way. I'm shocked he isn't an admin already. -- Random <sup style="color:olive;">Say it here! 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Clearly has improving Wikipedia at heart, and I have seen no evidence that he would abuse admin tools. WP:VC was a very good idea, and its initial hiccups were no worse than those of many other ideas initially scorned and later adopted. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Although I do not always agree with his ideas, I think this user is a valuable contriubtor and will only become more effective with the mop. Gutworth 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I admit that I don't entirely "get" this candidate, as he seems to pursue Wikipedia with an unmatched gusto and a sort of entrepreneurial spirit.  I came here to write articles, and only stumbled on the back end of Wikipedia when someone speedy deleted my article.  The Transhumanist seems to have come here to reform the systems that strike him as odd or unwieldly, which is cool.  Of the opposes below, I see none that even slightly convince me that the candidate can't be trusted with the tools. That is the only important question. --<font color="3300FF">Spike Wilbury 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I see nothing to make me believe this user will abuse the tools. I hear the concerns about dispute resolution, but I've looked at recent contribs and frankly don't see anything that concerns me.  I think this user has honestly grown in their understanding of appropriate dispute resolution techniques.  Philippe 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong $upport. I believe The Transhumanist has more than earned Admin tools. I've never experienced a more dedicated and caring user, and have absolute conviction that The Transhumanist would be a great Sysop. Dfrg.msc 06:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Haber. —AldeBaer 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Great person, always neutral and objective. I'm sure he would make a great admin. Grandmaster 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support A hard working guy who will use the tools well. Nick mallory 13:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. The answers at the questions were good.--MariusM 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Hard working, and not likely to delete the main page. I have good experiences with this user. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Given his involvement with the Virtual classroom and former admin school, I always assumed he was already an admin. In any case, his long experience with helping other users and with Wikipedia processes leads me to support. A focus on internal Wikipedia details rather than mainspace contribs is not a problem, IMO, given how desperately we need more admins. Walton <sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!  15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, is he not an admin already. An excellent user. Tim.bounceback( review me! 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) RfA Clique Support Why, oh WHY is he not already an admin? ~ G1  gg  y  !  23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Very Strong Support I love his answers to the questions, especcialy 6. He would make a great admin, I'm surprised he's not one already.-- TREYWiki  00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE support. Great intentioned user. I have confidence he won't misuse the sysop tools. In the words of one of his former usernames, "Go for it!" &mdash; Crazytales o.o 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support: I have seen this user around a lot and have seen nothing but good work from this user. While there are some troubling things mentioned in this RfA, and there are some nice comments on the user's previous RfA, I do not think that this user will abuse the tools or make a bad administrator. Like many others I did think TT was already an administrator. Also, this has been mentioned plenty of times before, it is just a couple extra buttons. I don't think that he will abuse these buttons and the project can only probably benefit from another administrator with TT's experience. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;"> <font color=#FF0000> O<font color=#990000>r <font color=#660000>f <font color=#330000>e <font color=#000000>n    <font color=#FF0000> User Talk | <font color=#000000> Contribs 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Exceptional vandal fighter-- Navy •  Missile  02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)  Indef. blocked user. -- <b style="color:deeppink; font-family:georgia;">Real96</b> 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Needs to cut to the chase more often (see answers to my questions above - long-winded is the word; comments that only touch upon the issue at hand naturally make me suspicious), but in light of the fact that this user has a long track record of positive commitment to Wikipedia's goals, and has given some indication (albeit too narrow for some peoples' liking) of how they would use the admin tools for good, they should be given the position. Again, it isn't a big deal and Wikipedia needs more admins; even if they are only working in a limited capacity it would be an improvement. --Edwin Herdman 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support Heck, I wouldn't have a problem skipping RfA for this user. You've greatly improved over the last few months. T Talk to me 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While I haven't had experiences with this user, his answer to question number three troubles me. I like his answers about patience, etc. etc., but that's pretty boilerplate. It doesn't seem to reconcile with the seriousness of his prior action, and "hiding under other usernames" does not seem to reflect that an admin should not shy from controversy, if he is doing the right thing. Conflict is unavoidable, but it's also one of those things that should not cause an admin to meltdown. &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. I've learned a lot since that episode, which was over a year ago.  All previous usernames can be found in my archives via a link on my userpage, and have been on display since last summer.  Thank you for your concern.  The Transhumanist  21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have quickly checked the edits of the former accounts. As far as I can see they were only used in a constructive manner and not in any way prohibited by our policies (WP:UN, WP:SP). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cacycle (talk • contribs).
 * To help shed more light on the my past actions and on how I've dealt with those and modified my behavior since then, I've expanded my answer to question #3 above. Please let me know if you have any further concerns, or if there are any questions you would like answered.  The Transhumanist  20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose We don't need any more admins, let alone admins creating schools to create more admins. Haber 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, have you got a reason that this particular candidate shouldn't be an admin, rather than a general comment about no more admins or the admin coaching program?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I take issue with that comment. Wikipedia is terribly short of admins. Only 1,225 users are admins (not all are active) out of 4,461,700 registered user accounts. That means that about 0.03% of our users are administrators. i belive that is the lowest ratio of any Wikimedia project by a long way. There are backlogs of many days to be cleared in Candidates for speedy deletion. Admins are frequently retiring because of the heavy workload doing the job well entials. So actually we do need more admins - lots more admins. WjBscribe 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - take this to a talk page - I've already started here. The Rambling Man 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not for the multiple usernames issue, but because I have seen nothing to indicate this editor has a clear understanding of what being an admin is: from his ill-conceived school, which went down in flames, up until the present time, it appears that the Transhumanist, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally ill suited for the mop and broom. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding of what an admin is somebody who would use the admin tools such as blocking users, protecting pages, and editing protected pages, responsibly according to policy and common sense, keeping the welfare of the community and of the project in focus at all times. And I can guarantee I will create new pages in the future that will get shot down in flames, not on purpose, and not many I hope, but I'm willing to take the risk of trying something new.  The last time I checked, there was no proposal process for creating new pages.  This concept is central to Wikipedia's underlying philosophy. And by their very nature, creating new pages is a trial and error exercise.  I apologize for my antics in the deletion debate, but I'm not sorry I created that page.  Besides, something good did come out of taking that risk -- it led to new and better ideas.  I don't know why you've become so hostile, but I hope we can become friends and work side-by-side some day.  The Transhumanist  20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not hostile. I am of the opinion you are not suited for the mop and broom. Your sense of humor about creating things which go down in flames is great - that you didn't ask me why I thought you were not suited but instead read my very brief view as hostility, confirms that you are indeed not suited. You don't understand - and when you don't, all too often you become defensive, accusatory, dismissive - instead of seeking to ensure you fully understand what the other party is saying. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this conversation is telling of the applicant's character. Orangemarlin 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so...
 * KillerChihuahua, I'm not basing my impression of your being hostile on this one occurrence. I've experienced nothing but hostility from you from the moment I met you.  It's not that you are critical, but the manner in which you present your criticisms.  "Shot down in flames" didn't seem to me a nice way to talk about it.  To let you know this isn't being defensive, accusatory, or dismissive.  I'm simply being honest and letting you know that to me you do indeed come across as hostile.  Also, the motive for your criticisms isn't clear, because the reason you gave above didn't seem to support your claims.  And I believe I addressed your reason (the school) satisfactorily.  That you painted my response as humor and claimed that I don't understand because I didn't respond to reasons you did not present is pure rhetoric.  The school was the only reason you presented, and so it was the only reason I addressed.  As a matter of fact, the issue of training admins is the only one we've ever been in conflict over, including the reason supporting your oppose vote above.  If you have further reasons, this is the proper venue to present them, because the very purpose of RfA is to discuss a candidate's worthiness or lack thereof for the mop.  I don't believe this is a place to agendize, such as opposing a nominee just because he supports a position you are against.  I understand Wikipedia a lot better than you are trying to prove otherwise.  Test me.  Ask me anything about Wikipedia.  See how well I understand it.  (Or how fast I can look it up).  :-)  I look forward to your questions, and to your replies.  The Transhumanist  23:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the only reason I gave is "because I have seen nothing to indicate this editor has a clear understanding of what being an admin is". I'm not trying to prove anything. I feel for you, I do - you seem to have the highest of motives and you have learned a lot and you are eager to help, always - but your fundamental approach, I am sorry to say, is ... not quite there. Not quite on target. You think I was hostile to you about the school? No. My position on the Mfd was opposed to yours. I thought, and still think, the school was a horrendously bad idea, and it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding about what being an admin entails, and whether one even should try to teach it. You tried to do too much, too soon, without taking the time to learn. You act in haste, not with due deliberation. You have wonderful energy, but you don't always slow down enough to consider before you act. You call me hostile, even after I tell you I am not, and argue with me about my own feelings. Is this good people skills? Is this knowing how to work with others with whom one might disagree? This is not rhetoric, I am trying very hard to convey to you that it is not one thing, it is the package. I bear no ill will towards you at all. But I don't think you grasp why I think you'd not be a good admin, and until you have a paradigm shift in your view of Wikipedia and adminship, you will not be. Its a matter of focus, of perspective. I don't know how to express this any better right now. I am sorry I cannot seem to explain it in a way you can "get" - maybe if I think about it for a bit, I will think of alternate phrasing which might convey my meaning better. I hope this has helped, anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding: If you cannot look past the simple phrase " shot went down in flames" and move past it to discuss actual issues, you may have problems dealing with the attacks which are an Admin's regular lot. And secondly, the part I think you may have problems with? You cannot look it up. Its that simple. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to take this time to thank Transhumanist, the, for validating my vote. Well done!  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This conversation has not only validated my vote this time, but if this RfA is a failure, for all future votes. Telling another admin that they have been hostile is not what I would look for in an admin who is supposed to build consensus and douse any flames. Orangemarlin 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it is exactly the type of feedback that should be most valued by an admin. I would want to know if I was coming across as hostile rather than merely discussing an issue politely.  But if there is no polite way to tell an admin that they are being hostile, then that's a Catch-22, isn't it!  The Transhumanist  02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't say I sounded hostile, or suggest better phrasing, you told me I am hostile, and then proceeded to argue with me. It may well be I sound hostile. Text is notoriously difficult to capture intention in. But there is a world of difference between "your edit reads as a hostile remark, are you hostile?" and arguing with someone that they are hostile. The first is helpful, the second is disprespectful and argumentative to no purporse. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference - nor indeed the irony that you arrogantly presume your feedback is valuable, whereas you have done nothing but denigrate mine and dismiss it. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KC originally said "which went down in flames". You've misquoted him. --Quiddity 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Quiddity. You're feedback is always appreciated.  ;-)  The Transhumanist  02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua, the "only reason" you gave was followed by a colon. And the only reason you gave in support of your conclusion which you presented after that colon, was the school.  Your hostility, which is in print and easy to verify, is in the manner of your speech, not in the underlying conflict.  Two people can be in conflict and still be polite to one another.  And I am being polite. Are you? I am also doing what we are expected to do on Wikipedia during a conflict:  discuss the matter.  You mentioned with respect to the school that I did "too much, too soon, without taking the time to learn".  I believe I did take the time to learn, that is, creating the page was the fastest way to learn in the given situation.  Researching the issue first could have taken days or weeks, and would have involved just as many people.  But with respect to project pages, portals, and articles, etc., there is no mandatory proposal procedure.  The standard procedure when you get an idea for a page is to just create it.  And one of the standard ways for the community to provide feedback on bad pages is nominating them for deletion.  Mandatory preapproval for a page is a bad idea.  It is an example of creeping bureaucracy, and has reared its ugly head on Wikipedia before:  Portal/Proposals was a department that asserted the defacto policy that portals needed to be preapproved in order to be created, and not having preapproval from that department was used as a reason at MfD for the deletion of portals created without preapproval.  Out of some bizarre coincedence, I happened to be the one who created the portal that was subject to the first and only such MfD, which led me swiftly to MfD the preapproval page.  Now you seem to be implying that I should have gotten preapproval on another type of page.  I am completely opposed to that.  I do not agree.  And I do not agree that it shows any lack of understanding of the fundamentals of Wikipedia.  What the admin school debate showed was that there was a schism in the Wikipedia community concerning the organized training of admins, and I happened to stumble across it.  We need more admins, and the current system isn't supplying them fast enough.  Wikipedia is falling behind the admin workload.  But we can't provide them fast enough because we aren't allowed to train admins in a faster way than we already are. So far, you haven't provided any concrete examples of merit, and other people are basing their opposition on your extremely vague and  non-specific posting.  The nominees here at RfA deserve better than that, including me, and I believe it is a fundamental problem with the RfA process itself.  If there are any other concrete examples besides the admin school and the admin training issue, please present them.  Otherwise, quit distorting this process for the sake of pushing a personal agenda.  Sincerely, The Transhumanist  02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I gave was delineated by a timespan bracket: "from his ...school, ... up until the present time". Its not the school, its the attitude. And since you are still failing to comprehend that, and have not only refused to accept that I am not hostile, but have escalated this into accusing me of "distorting this process" and "pushing a personal agenda", I am done with this discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * TH, if you really believe that KC was hostile, and if you and you alone have intuited hostility where there was none that means one of two things: either you're not paying attention; or your definition of hostility is outside the norm. Either way it bodes ill for any future RfA attempts you might consider.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I've never opposed for "lack of a need for the tools" and am probably on the record as criticizing people who oppose just for that reason, but it feels a bit different here. This is one of those candidates who seems to really want adminship, and yet has no particular use for it. If all you want is to see how the tools work, I'm sure someone could have set you up with an admin account on a test wiki months ago. It's just this combination of apparently having spent a long time grooming oneself for RFA yet having no particular use for the admin tools beyond the supposed prestige... I don't see how giving this user the tools really benefits the project. I do think we need more admins, but we need them so they can clear backlogs and otherwise deal with article issues as only admins can, not just so they can be slightly more informed as they converse on meta pages. --W.marsh 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't associate adminship with prestige, and I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. Many people already assume I'm an admin, so I guess you could say that whatever prestige you are alluding to, I already have.  So there must be some other reason I want the tools...  Please see my additional response to question #3 above.  The Transhumanist  20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. I've found myself working alongside (and often at odds with) The Transhumanist since I got here, some 2+ years ago, so have a fair amount to say.
 * I imagine this RfA will succeed, simply through all the good-will he has acquired through so many metapedian projects. He'll definitely rock the boat, and probably implement all sorts of experiments, and sometimes that will be a good thing, but unless there were some more conservative admins keeping a watchful eye on him, I'd be uncomfortable recommending him for adminship. (Also, per W.marsh and KillerChihuahua above)
 * To start with, I'm worried that his project to overhaul all the real-life help pages needs some more experienced input. The direction he has taken the Help article is quite radical, and I'm unsure if the concerns of editors such as Prolog and Qxz (at User talk:The Transhumanist/Help me) have been properly addressed.
 * His main problems (as I see it, with some random examples) are overconfidence (e.g. this thread, the admin school debacle, and the answer to question 3 here ("try and try again till you succeed")), self-promotion (e.g. the distractingly colourful 3-line sig, the new Award Center, the links to transhumanism and nootropics that were added to dozens of philosophy and health pages). and an emphasis on metapedian page/project creation (often redundant, always effusive, and frequently neglected after creation (e.g. Portal:Thinking and Health, many of the Lists of basic topics)).
 * Lastly, I'd also like to strongly caution him (again) on overt graphic design - I deeply feel that he needs to better understand the sparse/minimal/simple/clean aesthetic that is so important to keeping the encyclopedia's overall "character" neutral. The more "personality" and decoration (icons, coloured backgrounds and borders) added, whether in articlespace or helpspace, the more restricted will be the group that appreciates its look (He has come a long long way since creating Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a and various iterations of User:Go for it!'s userpage though). The continued use of graphical smilies in talkpages concerns me particularly strongly; I pray that they never spread outside userspace.
 * I hope he gets more involved in the article maintenance and backlog clearing aspects of adminship, as that is where we actually need the enthusiasm and energy he brings. And I hope that he remembers to ask first just a little more often, instead of fixing/apologizing after, when contemplating any far-reaching or repercussive design/organization changes. --Quiddity 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose This is the first time I’ve ever commented on an Admin, but then again this is the first time I’ve been compelled to comment.  I have been observing Admins for the past few months, especially in contentious articles surrounding Evolution and Creationism.  I try to picture The Transhumanist in such a situation, and based on his previous uncivil comments in contentious situations, I have no confidence that this person would deal well with it.  When I hire people for management positions, there are those who like to tell people what to do, make beautiful plans and spreadsheets, and create lots of lists and rules; on the other hand, there are those who roll up their sleeves and get the actual work done.  Transhumanist seems like the former, which isn’t a skill set required by Wiki these days.  The bureaucracy is established by consensus, and this person appears to be lacking in that style.  In addition, a quick look at their Mainspace edits is wholly unimpressive.  They have not added anything to Wiki and to the knowledge base of the encyclopedia.  There seems to be a lot of fluff and not very much substance to The Transhumanist.  I thought about adding the typical "seems like a nice person" comment, but I don't want to lie.  Orangemarlin 00:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another example of an extremely vaguely presented supposition (being thus by being unsupported by concrete examples) which other users here are basing their decisions on. And I think it is totally unfair to take such an approach in a venue like this one.  And he topped it off with an insult.  Why are nominees being allowed to be treated like this?  So I will address each point the best I can under these conditions, to show that it is Orangemarlin who is producing fluff and not me...  I have mediation experience, on the article Paytakaran.  The participants from both sides of that dispute seem to be happy with my performance.  But OrangeMarlin didn't tell you that.  Also, including my current and previous accounts, I have over 6400 edits in the main namespace.  I worked extensively on the article Meaning of life, which includes both creationism and evolutionism (without applying bias to the religious and spiritual sections of that page), and I've presented religious topics on the contents pages I've worked on, even though I myself am not religious.  I've written an article on procrastination which was turned into a Wikibook - I actually use those methods, which is one reason I get so much done.  :-) And I've copy-edited a great many other articles.  With respect to rolling up the shirt sleeves to get a job done, I've put in thousands of hours working on Wikipedia's structure.  Its navigation structure: the link paths which help people find the subjects and specific topics they are looking for, whether they are articles, help pages, policies, or anything else here.  The pages displaying this structure also show how subjects themselves are organized; that is, how the knowledge of the world all fits together.  The various contents pages of Wikipedia, its navigation templates, topic lists, overviews, and so on.  I believe these are useful tools, and if they aren't I sure wish somebody would have told me this before I put so much time into them!  That OrangeMarlin believes they are fluff shows how much he knows about building a hypertext encyclopedia.  His insult flinging also tells us a lot about him. Please think twice before basing your decision here on his statement.  Thank you.  Sincererly, The Transhumanist  02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Character matters, and what you have written above shows your character. It is hostile, is a personal attack, and makes assumptions about me that are both incorrect and demeaning.  For someone who wants to be an Admin, your knowledge of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are notably deficient.  However, if you were attacking me alone, that would be bad.  But your responses throughout here are telling.  Based on what I've seen here, I hope I never run across you in editing an article.  Orangemarlin 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The ability to be tactful, non-dismissive, somewhat humble, civil, calm, non-abusive and non-abrasive also matter in an RfA. Sadly, those qualities are missing in Transhumanist.  Perhaps one day he'll learn how to win friends and positively influence people, but I shan't be holding my breath.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do OrangeMarlin's oppose remarks pass WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? If not, then why didn't anyone point this out?  Are these suspended in here for everyone but the nominee?  The Transhumanist
 * 1) oppose This candidate's answer to question 3 is particularly troublesome. The candidate by his own description doesn't handle disputes well at all. Furthermore, he has an obsession with changing policy when he has little real experience implementing policies and other things by actually writing in article space. Many supporters assert that we can trust him with the tools but I'd be genuinely worried what he would do with the admin tools if he had another "full wiki-meltdown". JoshuaZ 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm afraid there is an underlying lack of maturity that could lead to The Transhumanist being more of a detriment to the project as an administrator. The strong desire for adminship and power is worrisome. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Orangemarlin said it best. There is an intractable quality about this editor - a sort of vanity that is compounded by indulgent methods. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose.  I am not convinced that the most serious concern raised in the last RfA has been addressed--that The Transhumanist values hierarchies, processes, and forms more than the real workings of the encyclopedia. His latest project, User:The Transhumanist/Award Center, is a good example. Chick Bowen 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - this editor has made significant contributions to the project, and clearly has the best of intentions. However, I have significant concerns about the specific issues raised by both KillerChihuahua and Orangemarlin. In the absence of a demonstrated need for the tools, and given the history of troubled interactions, I feel that Admin status is unwarranted. Doc  Tropics  05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) In my experience, TH tends to take an overly formal and bureaucratic approach to issues, which belies a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. This is not a good trait for a candidate admin.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per KillerChihahua, Radiant, John Reaves and Orangemarlin. I have been waiting for this RfA with some trepidation, and believe that TH lacks some fundamental understanding of how this place works. Deepest apologies. – Riana ⁂  11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per /kc, Radiant, OM, Doc Tropics and Swatjester <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose My reading is that this editor is going for adminship for adminship's sake - not for a need of the tools. With respect, let's remember it's no big deal, and I'm afraid I see all the signs that it is a big deal here - hence my oppose - sorry. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia is a big deal. Admin tools are just another part of the whole. The Transhumanist  20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per several comments above: KillerChihuahua, w.marsh, John Reaves, Chick Bowen, Radiant and Pedro. I feel that most, if not all, of the concerns raised on his last RfA (Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist) still apply. – Steel 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I might comment here, there was some amount of discussion about the unreadability of his signature in the first application. I would think that there would have been some modification to what I consider to be a signature that is meant to be bright and splashy, rather than artistic, but still readable.  I'm not a shrink, but their signature seems to be a statement of what we've observed about this editor. Orangemarlin 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) User focuses much on bureaucratic stuff, but fails to understand the basic purpose of Wikipedia. Heart's in the right place. Michael as 10 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Doesn't seem to get why we're here - to build an encyclopedia. Not apt enough for the extra buttons. Not trustworthy with them. Lacks the right characteristics and focus.  Daniel  12:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I think Doc Tropics put it best. I could overlook the concerns more easily if there was a demonstrated need for the tools; as there doesn't seem to be, I feel uneasy about this. Trebor 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Perhaps it was meant in jest, but I found the comment in 7 about neutrality worrying. The aim of mediation isn't to push the article in a direction that you think is correct, it's to mediate between editors. The aim isn't really to finish the article, it's to stop an argument. I think this is typical of a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and like many of those above I'm not yet convinced that, given these concerns, adminship is right for someone who is already very busy. Chrislintott 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did was take all their desired material and synthesized it into a version they might be happy with. They weren't happy with all the aspects of it, but both sides liked it a lot better than the version that was there before.  And both sides had the power to veto, so neutrality was not sacrificed.  Also, I covered my proposed approach (that I would be suggesting solutions) when I first arrived, and they all agreed.  So I didn't push against anyone, I was pushing for everyone.  I'm sorry I didn't clarify that better to begin with.  The Transhumanist  06:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't criticising your conduct in the moderation; I haven't had time to read it thoroughly. I was criticising the comment above, specifically I could finish the article myself in a few hours, but I can't because I've pledged neutrality. . I was worried about the idea that the article could be 'finished' by you; leaving aside the idea of finishing a wikipedia article, a mediation is finished when both sides have agreed, not when they reach your solution. I appreciate your point above, but I still feel unhappy. Chrislintott 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose mostly per KC, W.marsh and Swatjester. And his previous talk about playing around with the MediaWiki namespace still gives me chills...Sarah 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Uncomfortable at this point to do anything but oppose, as per the concerns already raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Dont get me wrong, I think you have improved a lot since your first RfA, however I think Q3 seems a bit of a worry, I respect you for the fact that you admitted your mistakes etc, I think Radiant! sums it up quite well, however let me congratulate you on your excellent and thorough userpage design centre. Kindest regards &mdash; <font color="00DD00">The Sunshine  <font color="00DD00">Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, a valued contributor, but the Q3 answer is just too troubling to grant the tools. · jersyko   talk  15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose A good editor, but the question to question 3 is unacceptable to me. — M ETS 501 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, mostly due to Q1 and Q7. I agree with W.marsh above, I'm reluctant to give "no need for the tools" as a reason as adminiship is no big deal, but it really seems like he wants adminship just for the sake of adminship, and seems to perceive adminship as a bureaucracy rather than the few extra buttons that it really is. I really don't understand this whole thing about "training" sysops; all a new sysop has to do is read over WP:ARL, it's not that hard. Adminship should be granted to someone so they can perform administrative chores, not so they can write about them. Krimpet (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this up. The thing about training is this page right here right now: RfA.  Going through an RfA can be like being in a ticker-tape parade and it can also be like being thrown into a furnace.  Have you talked to anyone who has failed an RfA?  It can be a traumatic experience.  They come to me for training because they don't want what is happening to me right now to happen to them.  Opposes.  Who wants opposes?  Nobody.  So they seek coaches, and they train.  To prepare for this ordeal called RfA, nominees jump through whatever hoops it takes, whether it be fighting vandalism 4,000 times a month, or developing 4 articles to Featured Article status.  All to get through this potentially horrific bureaucratic process, and do so without embarrassment.  They want to receive cheers instead of jeers.  And they want to be admins, but many will not admit it openly because it isn't politically correct to seek adminship.  Why do they want adminship?  For the tools.  Why do they want the tools?  To help.  So they jump through hoops.  But I'm not a hoop jumper.  Is adminship bureaucratic?  I don't know, I haven't tried it yet.  But the procedure to become an admin certainly is.  But that's not necessarily a bad thing.  If there was no bureaucracy ("administrative department") for this, then that would mean everybody would already have the tools.  And we all know how that would turn out.  But the discussions here often have little basis in reality.  So while RfA is a necessary evil, training is just one way of overcoming it.  I hope you've found my explanation helpful.  The Transhumanist  22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my past comments, the admin coaching thing, opposing commenters above, and especially your response to Krimpet just right above. I still think that you have the wrong impression of RfA and adminship in general. How is RfA bureaucratic? Tell me, how is writing articles, getting involved in Wikipedia processes, discussing with other editors, learning from some contentious major dispute, and filing a request (or have someone nominate you) bureaucratic? You are blowing a simple process completely out of proportion, turning a meager request into some quintessential trophy. Yes, no one wants oppose votes (who wants to be criticized?), but it is from opposition and criticism that we learn our faults, not from unanimous support. Yes, occasionally we get some absurd oppose rationale, but you seem to be working on the availability heuristic a bit too much. —<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kyриx  00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's bureaucratic because it fits one of the definitions of bureaucracy: "An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action". RfA is complex, with the qualifications and standards by which nominees are judged being in continuous flux, as often as day by day or even from RfA to RfA.  These qualifications, that is, what nominees expect they need to have accomplished in order to pass, determine what they must do to succeed.  They're aiming at moving targets!  Therefore it often requires extensive amounts of preparation, by those who wish to ensure that they succeed, in areas they may not even be interested in.  And this is where it impedes effective action the most, because people work harder on those things they are most interested in.  This is supposed to be a volunteer organization driven by interest.  So why the mandates?  This process is especially tough on those who have failed first.  And the availability heuristic doesn't apply in my case, since I'm being opposed (in the discussion above) for the very reason I tried to improve the training process, which is intimately intertwined with how much the RfA process sucks.  It sucks primarily because of the "pile on" phenomenon, where users base there decisions on the baseless suppositions of others.  How can you tell the difference between fact and mere detraction unless you dig deep (into a nominee's contributions), and who has the time?  But to oppose because I answer the concerns presented by opposers is a magic bullet.  It's ingenious really.  Disallow (via punishment by opposition) discussing reasons in a discussion forum.  I've seen several nominees stopped dead in their tracks by the magic bullet.  That's unfortunate, because nominees are the best persons to be able to comment on the observations about them.  Because we all have first-hand experience of ourselves.  But it is being disallowed in this venue by threat of chastizement and opposition votes.  That nominees are chastized for engaging in discussion with opposers here is ridiculous.  In my opinion, concerning my own RfA, all of the concerns about my qualifications need to be addressed.  Even if only for future reference.  And if I'm criticized for trying to explain my actions and my viewpoints, so be it.  I believe it will help others who read my replies get to know me better, and thus be able to make a better decision about my ability to further the best interests of Wikipedia, whether they decide to support me or not. Sincerely, The Transhumanist   04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I even dig deep into your reply, may I make clear that I had in no way opposed you simply for responding. I had instead commented on the merits of your argument. It's almost 11pm at my place at the time of my post, so I can't really go into detail about my rebuttal at this time (yes, I do have one). —<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kyриx  05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Full comment Let me respond to you point by point. With respect to the nature of RfA, you seem to be looking at RfA standards a face value, or rather their inflated value, than actually knowing what RfA is about. Being successful on your RfA is not about 4000 mainspace edits, 4 featured articles, 4 major conflicts, etc. It is about understanding Wikipedia processes and functions, and knowing how to reconcile your opinions and beliefs with the general structure of Wikipedia. This fundamental misunderstanding and overemphasis on the thin surface of adminship and overemphais on getting over the barriers of RfA instead of understanding why they are there is what I most find fault in about your Wikipedia philosophy. About the availability heuristic, I was remarking on your overemphasis of negative incidents on RfA instead of noticing the many successful nominations that happen almost everyday on this page. Second, about opposes for responding, you seem to have misinterpreted mine (and everyone else's) comments. They are talking about your tone in your response, not the existence of the response. You seem to have utter contempt for oppose votes, dismissing them as baseless, unsubstantiated, and even hostile, a destructive trait antithetical to a Wikipedia editor, let alone a potential adminstrator. And I'm not sure what you mean by the magic bullet thing, and I wish for clarification about that before I pass judgement, though I see a tint of arrogance in your phrasing above. "Stopped by the magic bullet"? Please explain such remarks. —<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kyриx  01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I was meaning to oppose earlier when it was almost unanimous support, but then I had to go do some digging and evaluate the most recent opposition. Basically, my initial reason to oppose was the conflicts documented in Q3. This user has blown his top on a number of occasions, and I don't see how we can guarantee this won't happen as an administrator. Also, as Daniel said, your focus on Wikipedia seems misguided. AFAIK, one of the first things this user targeted was an eoverhaul of the admin coaching program, and his subsequent admin school program. From the start, it appears he had his eyes on adminship, which is precisely not the point of Wikipedia. A good editor in general, but I think the past actions are a bit problematic. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, his archives are just a little hard to find. See User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive menu for previous edit histories. --Quiddity 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quiddity, thank you again. Nishkid, my first edit was on October 11, 2005, and can be found here.  The Transhumanist
 * Nishkid, there is no absolute guarantee that I nor any other user will not freak out at any given moment. But in my case I give you my word and pledge that I will not.  Freak out, that is.  Looking back on the ordeals in question, they are pretty silly of me I must admit.  And like you, I'm left wondering why I behaved that way.  The only plausible explanation I can come up with is that it has taken me awhile to get used to they way things are done around here. When I started here, my modus operandi for everything was competitive, not consensus-based.  But I'm comfortable with wikiways now, and have been for several months (even longer in most areas).  I like to think that wikiways have become second nature to me. If ever there is anything you need assistance on, please feel free to ask.  If I'm available, I'll do what I can.  (But I'm busy this week, for obvious reasons).  :-)  Sincerely,  The Transhumanist  05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose For all the reasons already stated and then some. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "And then some." Thanks for being so specific.  :-) Could you please be more specific?  The Transhumanist  05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cough. Err..., do you really think snipes like that are going to help your cause? Whilst the editor could have expanded their oppose I think your response amply demonstrates that you are not really admin material, emoticons or otherwise. Sorry. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not interpretted as a snipe, but as a response (hence the emoticon), yes. Being more specific would be a good thing.  See my talk page.  The Transhumanist
 * 1) Changing to Strong Oppose after considering the outcome of my failed discussion on Transhumanist's talk page which was a direct result of Transhumanist's apparent snipe at FeloniousMonk's oppose vote. Candidate has repeatedly failed to respond directly to my comments or at least not mask them in overlong posts, which was most evident in the Talk page discussion where a criticism of Transhumanism's attempts to grind out criticisms, as if they could only be unjust, was answered with what amounts to an argument that the candidate has a diverse selection of friends whose collective judgement passes as a replacement for candidate's own introspection. Thus candidate is conveniently absolved of any character flaws, despite the fact that we have multiple glaring instances of candidate being too absorbed in the RfA and in confronting users. As noted, candidate has many good qualities but I have a feeling that they lie mainly in the editing domain. This has been a hard call to make; I really want to turn it positive or neutral but I fear what might happen otherwise. It's become quite evident that this is A Big Deal, and candidate isn't seeing why people are becoming concerned. Eyes wide open are a prerequisite for this job. --Edwin Herdman 09:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When criticisms aren't backed by concrete examples, which is the case with many posts at RfAs, they may or may not be grounded in fact. If they aren't grounded in fact, but are instead motivated by an agenda, personal grudge, etc., others may be mislead by such posts and base their decisions on them.  I believe allowing rebuttals could help relieve this problem of RfAs.  I'm not saying that posts here aren't grounded in fact, I'm saying that if they are, readers should have the privilege of reading those facts by their being presented along with the claims they support.  And therefore criticizing someone for presenting rebuttals and providing counter examples or evidence, or requests for same, undermines the RfA process, the purpose of which is to discuss nominees' qualifications and arrive at an informed decision.  Toward this end, if a nominee has something valuable to add to the discussion, they should be allowed to do so.  Concerning my reply to FeloniousMonk above, it was intended as a jest, in response to the irony of his post in light of my requests above for concrete examples from my contributions.  Nothing more and nothing less.  I humbly request that he interpret my response in that way, and answer my  intent:  a request for specific examples from my contributions.  Sincerely, The Transhumanist
 * 1) Oppose per conduct on this page. If anyone wants to coach potential admins, I think this nom would be a good case study on how not to conduct one.  Anyone who perceives KillerChihuahua as "hostile" probably doesn't have the temperament for being an admin anyway.  Guettarda 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I cannot approve someone whose attitude toward naysayers is less than acceptable. TML 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Nope. I find the comments and replies to those who opposed totally inappropriate, the huge essay in response to Question 3 is clutching at straws, and shows a certain desperation to be an administrator, now that's not always a bad thing, especially when you stumble across a minor crisis only to find all the admins are in the jacuzzi or sauna, but here I seem to sense you want to be an admin just to stick an admin userbox on your Firefox non compliant userpage and sit in an ivory tower, peering down at regular editors instead of donning a pair of dungarees and following editors round making life easier (or more difficult, as is occasionally the case) for all. Nick 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. A user who thinks competence can be taught probably does not have it. Also, he has a disruptive signature and his agenda scares me. Also, I do not feel that the various names this user has previously used were adequately noted in this request. — CharlotteWebb 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I was going to stay out of this but I was far from impressed by the candidates behavior during his attempt to rename WP:C to something else without regard to consensus or the impact of his changes to other uses. Not only was his behaviour exceedingly disruptive but I was very concerned about the lack of contrition and the (apparantly) mildly agresslve attitude displayed to editors disagreeing with this. That said nearly six months has passed and I didn't think it would be fair to drag up old news. However, I'm rather concerned by the combative approach that the candidate has taken in responding to some of the opposes and this suggests to me that he has still to learn how to respond positively to concerns raised. This simply isn't acceptable in an admin - not only do they need the patience of job but they also need to learn from mistakes. I'm not seeing any evidence of this right now. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an observation: nominees are being held to standards of communication in this venue which the other posters are not. Opposers may say anything they want about a nominee, without providing references for each of their claims, but if they talked that way while they themselves were nominees, they wouldn't pass RfA.  Ask yourself this about OrangeMarlin's, KillerChihuahua's, and Anetode's oppose remarks: if they made claims or statements like these about opposers while going through the RfA process themselves, would they be approved?  The Transhumanist  22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your analogy works. If they were in their own RfAs, they'd be a lot less likely to make character judgments about the opposers, but rather focus on the opposing points. If it's the tone you're concerned about, from what I've read your retaliations are worse than the initial comments. There is nothing wrong with others making character judgments based on past interactions with you and reading what you have typed so far. If you'd like elaboration or specific diffs, there's a way to briefly ask for that without calling them hostile. You wrote to KillerChihuahua, "I've experienced nothing but hostility from you from the moment I met you." Where are the diffs for anyone else to verify this claim? If it is true, then write your evidence in one reply and leave it alone because if he's what you say he is, you know he won't change his position. An RfA is about the nominee; if the opposers make some strong, possibly invalid points, it's telling to see how the nominee responds to them. User:Anetode's open to admin recall - would you propose their recall to see whether your point is valid? –Pomte 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as great editor with no demonstrable need for the tools and who has queried many oppose !voters here in RfA. --Guinnog 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Close it down please. Your further comments are welcome on my talk page. The Transhumanist

Neutral
 * 1) Pending my private deliberation and answers to Qs 5 and 6. Martinp23 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I know you are certainly experienced, but I have some doubts akin to Orangemarlin's above.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I do really want to support this user. He demonstrates he's here to improve Wikipedia and would never intentionally harm her. But, answer #3 leaves me a bit wary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew (talk • contribs).
 * 4) Neutral leaning towards oppose--MONGO 12:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Leaning towards oppose as well. I think you're a great contributor (I thought you were an admin since ages ago!), but the points brought up by those who oppose are very good. · <font face="Times New Roman">AndonicO Talk 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Just way too many issues from both sides; really good aspects, and potentially really bad aspects as well. Q3 worries me a bit, but not as much as it does for others it seems.  Either way, I choose not to oppose, nor support. Jmlk17 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral While I would usually go with the multiple noms from admins I trust, there are just too many other issues raised above. David Fuchs( talk /  frog blast the vent core!  ) 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.