Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 4


 * ''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Final (3/15/4); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

- Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship. The Transhumanist 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my 4th RfA. I've made over 5,000 edits since my last one, which was about 9 weeks ago.

By the way, WikiProject Lists of basic topics needs list-builders. I hope to see you there.

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: Lately, I've been over at AfD a lot, and I could be of help closing deletion debates.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'd have to say it's my level of participation. I've tried to improve Wikipedia in general.  I've put most of my work into its navigability, but I have experience in many subject areas and across many departments.  Overviews was especially fun.  I also spend a lot of time helping others.  I'm contacted frequently by users with questions and requests, and I help them to the best of my ability.  I've put in 5,000 edits since my last RfA, and am up to over 35,000 edits total.  I've summarized my contributions on my user page.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Yes. In the Spring of 2006, and in my first and second RfAs.  They're well-documented in my previous RfAs.  How I deal with conflict now is take it to discussion for the most part.  The biggest conflict I've been in was a place name dispute at talk:Paytakaran, but I provided mediation rather than being a participant in the conflict itself.  Someone tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to help, so I did.  Both sides appreciated my involvement and my approach.

Questions from Avruch


 * 4. What has changed from your last request? For those who opposed before, how would you appeal to them in order to convince them to change their mind this time?


 * 5. What is your opinion on the status of administrators and their importance to Wikipedia? How important should being an administrator be to editors?

General comments

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


 * Links for The Transhumanist:
 * Links for Go for it! (my first account)
 * For the rest of my accounts, see the User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive menu


 * Clarification Transhumanist did not vote prior to closing the AfD in question. His closure as a non-admin was incorrect to my mind because there were "deletes," however ill-founded. It would have been better had he just commented, as T & E's reopening refactored his comment to be. The outcome of the AfD after re-opening and relisting was keep. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * Comment - I don't really understand... Are you rebelling against something that's happened? I would appreciate a greater explanation as I am rather confused. Scarian Call me Pat  14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Yes, the AFD closure is worrying. Changing to neutral.  Sorry  Strong Support.  Prolific editor.  Deserves the tools.  I supported last time, and will support this time. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Will be glad to support with more experience. I'm being sarcastic, in light of their own vote. This is a support. (Mind meal (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
 * 2) I'm sorry, I just don't understand how this user is not becoming an Administrator. He is a very experienced user, who has over 30,000 edits. Right now, he is even coaching me on becoming an Admin. I just truly don't see why very few other users are supporting him, because right now, not having Administrator powers is just holding him back from doing truly great things on Wikipedia. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck as per reconsideration of the Kim Dent-Brown oppose AfD closure attempt. Should be OK. User's abilities have not gone down since last time.  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. His last RFA was over 2 months ago. He does tons of work, has lots of experience, and knows what he's doing. His "I desperately hunger for power" was obviously a back-handed stab at Kurt Weber, which I found hilarious. Blows away my RFA standards. Useight (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hate to be first, but Oppose. This RfA really does not look at all serious, and gives me the impression of a "doesn't care" attitude. As well as this, he admits it in the nomination - desperate for more "power". Just no. And despite some of my recent RfA votes being "jokey", this one is deadly serious.  Majorly  (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sorry, as I supported (albeit weekly) last time, having opposed the time before. I'm in full agreeance with Majorly, particularly where he rightly says that this RfA carries a "don't care" attitude, and whilst I'm up for humour your 4th RfA is probably not the best place to bring it. In addiiton "I've made 5,000 edits since my last RfA" - that's like editing for adminship not editing for the purposes of encyclopedia building (sorry, not very faithful but that's the way I kind of see it). You're a great editor, you really, are, but this haste and seeming lack of respect for RFA is unbecoming in a potential admin. Again, sorry. Pedro : Chat  15:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Nope Just doesn't get it Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I thought I might support, but after reading through the RFA, I'm not sure if this is a joke, or if you're just not finished answering the questions... · AndonicO  Hail!  15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose even though you are my coach. I was a little stunned when I first seen this nomination. You last had an RFA nine weeks ago community consensus I'm afraid is unlikely to change in nine weeks. You recently told me at my coaching page not to nominate myself for at least a few months, then within a nine week span, I see my coach at RFA again?! I think you should of waited till at least July-time before nominating yourself again. I would also prefer a more extensive answer to question 1; is AFD the only activity you would delve into? If so, other admins may not be interested if that's the only area you are going to patrol. I also feel that there is some kind of point your making behind this nomination, if so, I suggest you withdraw this nomination as it is only going to worsen the community opinion on you. I suggest getting down several more thousand edits, and possibly contribute to one or two GA/FA articles, and try and do a lot more article-related work. Also, stating "Because I desperately hunger for power", makes it seem like that you feel it is a badge of honor to become admin, it is not (I don't know whether it was sarcasm, but you still shouldn't of said it.) . Being an admin is undertaking daily maintenence duties from day-to-day, resolving situations, deleting articles, sorting out possibly sockpuppetry situations etc. Good luck for the future, D.M.N. (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) No indication that the substantive concerns from TT 3 have been addressed. – Steel 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Reluctant oppose. I was going to repeat my support vote from last time, per my criteria for RfA. Trying to be methodical I had a quick check of your talk page and the first thing I saw was this attempted AfD closure. To try to prematurely close an AfD with four delete and three keep opinions (one of the keeps your own) is just not on. I'm an enormous admirer of your work here - I have looked through and benefitted from the admin coaching pages, and my user page is ultimately derived from your work. But applying my criteria dispassionately, I can't support this time. Suggest withdrawal to prevent souring the possibility of a future RfA altogether. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per D.M.N.. Wow.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) ...  krimpet ✽  16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Being an administrator isn't a big deal, but it isn't a joke. 4 RfA's says something, even if it isn't clear exactly what it says. Your answers to questions are lacking, your participating in administrator coaching is seemingly inappropriate, your attempts at "practice closures" of contested AfD's was ill-considered. There is nothing wrong with being an editor but not an administrator, and based on this and your prior RfAs I respectfully suggest that you reflect on that fact for your own benefit. Avruch  T 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose A certain editor springs to mind having failed a number of RfA's took the communities advice, and quietly got on with his work improved in the areas that some felt he lacked experience, and then after a fair amount of time, let himself be nominated and then passed with an almost clean sweep. A lot of well respected editors gave some positive feedback in your last RfA but I'm sorry to say this, I see no evidence that you have taken these criticisms and used them to your advantage. Also I'm not sure what to make of your opening statement. Khu kri 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose I really don't want to do this, but between the lack of time between RFAs, the very short and inadequate answers, the closing of an AFD when he voted in it, his practice closing of some of the AFDs, he seems to eager to want to become an admin and doesn't seem to understand the duties, viweing it as an award. His encyclopedic contributions have been great and very good though, which is why i feel bad opposing, but he just doesn't seem to "get it". The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Important clarification He did not vote prior to closing. When Trialsanderrors re-opened, he refactored Transhumanist's comment as a vote.  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My aplogies, i was looking at two diffrent versions and most have been confused. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have to oppose because of what I perceive to be an attitude problem. Don't get me wrong, you are a fantastic editor, I just don't think that you currently have the right attitude to be an admin. I think the tone of your RFA statement says it all; sarcasm doesn't come across well. Woody (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I supported last time, but I was not impressed with the ridiculous amount of questions TTH added to Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24, which led to the candidate having to answer all of them, followed by a load of opposition for what several people called unsatisfactory answers. See Avruch's comment in that RfA as well. Acalamari 17:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Is this already piling on?  If not, here is my oppose, per this opinion. -- Iterator12n   Talk 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Strong neutral, I'm concerned about this - when I first viewed this request I thought that your account had perhaps been compromised or your RfA vandalised, but when I realised it had not, it caused to me doubt the reasoning behind this RfA. Perhaps it is too soon after number 3, but with a few months good editing and a good attitude I would be possible to support next time. EJF (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sadly neutral In the past I've been prepared to co-nom your RFA but even you must see that regardless of your good qualities, you approach to this process is bound to get people's backs up? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Sorry, but the AFD closure wasn't good, and the oppose section has a few good points. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral but can't bring myself to oppose. I rather wish this RfA hadn't happened.  I think you have all the qualities of a good admin, but every once in a while you go and do something that makes me truly question your judgment.  This RfA is one of those.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.