Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 6


 * ''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Final tally: (42/26/1); withdrawn by candidate, closed by Juliancolton at 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– The Transhumanist is a long time editor (4+ years, c 60k edits) in good standing (never blocked), who has launched and supported a number of projects including recently the Outlines of Knowledge series. He has shown understanding of the WP policies and procedures, and has successfully marshalled volunteer effort to achieve significant results for the project, and deals with conflicts with patience and good humour. The Transhumanist seems always willing to learn, and consider new approaches, has a profound grasp of the technical side of things but is not overly diverted from working on content, and with other editors to produce it. His edit profile reflects this 44% main space, substantial contributions to talk, user talk and Wikipedia spaces and significant work on templates. He has the rollback tool and makes some use (in the region of 7000 edits) of AWB, all without any problem. His extensive project work makes page moves a commonplace, and for this reason alone granting the admin tools will benefit WP. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Whatever problems I come across and whatever others point out to me or approach me with, when I have the time. I expect I'll develop more interest in admin activities in general, and will have more reason to visit admins' usual hang-outs.  It would also be convenient to be able to delete cross-namespace redirects and other obvious speedies to remove a step in the process - currently, I pass those on via request to other admins.  Once I get up to speed with the tools, I'll have a look at the support pages for those, to see if I can improve them.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The WP:CBB, because it has improved communications within the Wikipedia community. The WP:TOTD project and WP:OTS, because they help editors get up to speed.  WP:DIR and WP:HELP (initially as User:Go for it!), because those help editors find their way around.  Coordinating WP:WPOOK and outline development, because outlines help users find their way in the Sea of Knowledge, and around Wikipedia.
 * Further to this, & in the light of my oppose #1 below, could you point to your best contributions to a conventional prose article (ie not a list or an outline). Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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: I have, most of it years ago. My current approach is to prevent problems as much as possible, by prevailing upon others for advice on the best way to proceed, and by posting explanations for major efforts to minimize uncertainty and confusion, and for the community to provide feedback.  When a conflict occurs, I take it to the talk page if we can't work it out in edit summaries.  In discussions, I answer the other person point-for-point, articulating the underlying reasons and philosophy for my actions as best I can, in the hopes of building a common understanding.  I remain civil for the most part, even when the other person does not.  I try not to escalate conflicts, taking it to admins if it starts to get out of control.


 * Additional optional questions from Kbdank71
 * 4. What have you learned since your last RFA?
 * A: Long-term perspective. The value of cooperation.  I've learned a lot about coordinating efforts, including team formation, task delegation, building morale, creating and maintaining support pages, promoting initiative, and role delegation.  I've shared a vision, and I watch in awe every day as others continue to help transform it into a reality.  I've learned that people with a common cause are truly amazing.


 * Question from
 * 5. Why do you not have a straightforward and easy to follow link to your talk page included in your signature, such as the usual (talk) favoured by the majority of administrators and users ? I'm aware that your signature does link to your talk page, but that just serves to further confuse new and unfamiliar users.
 * A: In all the years I've had this signature, no one has ever complained or commented upon where it leads to. (Until now). I've found that when I click on a signature, it is usually because I want to talk to the person, and so as a convenience, my signature lets others contact me directly.  The Transhumanist  16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from S Marshall
 * 6. Why were your five previous RFAs courtesy-blanked?
 * A: So they wouldn't show up in Google searches. The Transhumanist 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment: WP:RFA and its subpages have been added to the MediaWiki:Robots.txt a while ago, so RFAs now generally won't show up in Google searches. --Conti|✉ 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content?  Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources?  Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
 * A:: This is the philosophical question "How complete should Wikipedia be?" A truly complete information resource would tell someone about what they wanted to know no matter what they typed into the search box. Like, where you are, right now.  But that's not practical for Wikipedia.  Nor desirable.  If every person was covered by an article, none of us would have any privacy from our neighbors.  Society isn't ready for that, and neither am I. Therefore, I'm happy that completeness is not our goal.


 * Most of Wikipedia is unsourced, because we allow unsourced contributions for contributor convenience. Otherwise, contributions would slow to a crawl and Wikipedia would not grow as fast or be as up-to-date.  It's a trade-off between growth and being sourced.  So we basically trust people to add things that will improve the encyclopedia.  Hopefully they add things they actually know and didn't just make up, things that are useful and true.  My opinion of notability and the other core content policies is that they are there to prevent editors from going too far.  They're tools for removing the made up stuff, including the overemphasized and the exaggerated.


 * Most editors, including me, let material ride unless it seems dubious. With enough well-educated or well-read editors reading the encyclopedia, that provides pretty good protection.  When we come across something that doesn't "smell" quite right, then we follow the general rule "when in doubt, throw it out" (which works equally well when applied to the contents of your fridge).  But at Wikipedia we give the contributors a chance to prove the material's acceptability, and so we need a non-arbitrary cut-off point, and WP:GNG provides that.  That way, we can't just get rid of anything we want, at any time, which would be going too far in the other direction.  Therefore, in the way it is applied within our consensus-driven system, I support it. The Transhumanist  19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Plastikspork
 * 8. It is my understanding that you work primarily from a [ public terminal at a local library] . Are you worried about the possibility of someone snooping your password using a keylogger?
 * A: I access Wikipedia primarily from a university's library, on a complimentary computer that provides only .org/.edu/.gov access, which isn't the venue for most ID thieves. If you saw the place, you wouldn't be worried either.  If someone were to usurp this account, I would contact an admin who knows me and have the account blocked.  I can't discuss the protocol I would use, as that could compromise security. (Turning this post into a set of instructions!)   :) The Transhumanist  20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional questions from KillerChihuahua


 * 9. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
 * A: When there is:
 * a proposed change with consensus (see WP:FULL)
 * a proposed change without consensus but non-controversial (see WP:FULL)
 * But I would also act upon:
 * a request to make a change to a page protected due to frequent vandalism (I'd check the discussion page and edit history first to see that it doesn't run counter to established consensus)
 * a copyright violation
 * vandalism
 * a CSS or graphical problem (like when a page doesn't display right in a particular browser causing text to overlap a border, or an image to overlap text, etc.)
 * broken wiki-syntax (e.g., a heading with a straggling "=". I'd set the level appropriately)
 * neutral wikignome stuff (i.e. non-controversial typo fixes, spelling corrections, minor grammar adjustments, etc.)
 * an unforseen problem (on a case-by-case basis)
 * Unless the page is an office action, in which case I wouldn't touch it. Though I've never seen one of those.  The Transhumanist  01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 10. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?
 * A: My closing statement would read:
 * "Merge. Consensus favors non-deletion. Policy covers situations in which an event has its own article: WP:BLP1E states 'Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.' The Transhumanist  01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * I would then merge the articles, making the redirect sectional if the information on the person is contained within a single section. The Transhumanist 01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 11. Will you be open to discussion and criticism of your actions?
 * A: As open as I am now.  Which is pretty open.  I'm happy to discuss, even though I don't always agree. The Transhumanist  01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from JamieS93


 * 12. What is your current opinion on the long-since deleted Award Center? It was MfD'd 14 months ago, so yes, I understand that this may be considered a long-past issue. However, since you were a public representative/leader for that project, I still associate your name with the AWC. Do you agree (to one degree or another) that the "trophy-seeking" aspect of the AWC was becoming detrimental—especially since it involved potentially sloppy jobs with quality-important tasks like CSD tagging or GAN reviewing? What were its strengths/weaknesses in your opinion?
 * A: I don't think that trophy seeking was the problem. The WikiCup contest works fine, for instance.  It was the structure of the reward system set up at AWC that was the problem.  I agree with its closure.  My reason is due to something that happened after its AfD. An editor came to me to ask that since he already completed a task, if I would provide feedback on the batch of AfDs he had participated in for the reward and provide him with it.  I agreed, but it took me far longer than it took him to participate in the AfDs to begin with.  Come to think of it, I got burnt out after about 50, and I can't even remember giving the guy his award.  Checking batchwork is exceedingly tedious.  An award system based on that isn't feasible.


 * AWC was a failed experiment, but good things came from it. Determined to run an excellent contest, focus of the awards group (or what was left of it) shifted from setting up the next awards page to creating awards worthy of excellence.  Though we haven't run a contest yet, we have found the awards images to be useful beyond mere contests, and we have presented our first designed award.  The OOK WikiProject has proudly designated Buaidh as a Wikipedia World Developer, and it was well deserved.  The other awards images designed for the upcoming contest are equally impressive.


 * Additional follow up to question 8 from Ottawa4ever (talk)
 * 13. More of an extension to 8. I would like to ask a follow up query to question 8 for my own concern and for possibly for others. Basically at some universities and other public terminals anyone can come in and use the internet even if they dont specifically have a university account. This at times causes people to forget to log off very easily and completely log out. Clearing their passwords from the memory of the computer. Is this the same at yours?, Or does your library require an individual log in under people's own accounts and access is granted only to valid accounts? And finally do you have a committed identity account? and if not what steps would you do to secure your password? Thanks for your time. Please keep in mind this question is optional. I will gladly clairify if anything is unclear
 * A: I never forget to logoff. Even before restroom breaks.  And I reboot the computer when I'm done (using the computer, not the restroom).  And I never forget to flush.  :)


 * Additional optional questions from OhanaUnited
 * 14. Many of us believe that outlines are hybrid of portals and lists. Can you explain, in your own words, why outlines should exist when it is already covered by both portals and list?
 * A: There are many misassumptions about outlines. One is that they appeared out of nowhere.  Another is that they are some new type of article.  Neither is true.  The problem is that we (you and I) are not on the same page.  We aren't even in the same book.  So we need to start over, from the beginning.


 * Let me tell you a story...


 * "In the beginning, there were lists. The lists belonged to two tribes.  The two tribes were structured lists and alphabetical lists.  The lists belonging to each tribe were all named "List of", followed by a subject.  The two tribes lived in harmony and were happy, and they multiplied.  There became hundreds of structured lists and hundreds of alphabetical lists.  Then one day, the tribe of alphabeticals wanted to name one of its own to a subject already taken by the structureds. But on Wikipedia, that's impossible!  Not being able to share a name by using it for 2 different lists, the 2 tribes went to war and continued to compete for the same set of names, each subject being grabbed by either the structured lists or the alphabetical lists, but not both.  This war went on (silently) for years, splitting the subjects between the two tribes of lists in a very odd way as they continued to multiply, growing to thousands of structured lists and thousands of alphabetical lists.  Then one day, along came The Transhumanist who was bewildered by the war between these thousands of lists.  So he started renaming lists from the two tribes, starting from the most general of subjects (geography, history, etc.).  The structureds he called "Outlines", and the alphabeticals he called "Indexes".  Now both tribes could cover each subject if it needed to because the name was no longer already taken by the other tribe.  And whenever the Transhumanist created a new list, he named it either "Outline of" or "Index of", per WP:COMMONNAME.  But some Wikipedians thought they were seeing two new species, when actually these types of creatures had been around all along.  The end.


 * The two tribes (types) of lists referred to above have been included in the General formatting section of the Stand-alone list guideline since the day that guideline was created (about 7 minutes after it was created), under "Format of the lists".


 * So the answer to your question is that outlines aren't hybrids. They are one of the original 2 types of list.  (The 3rd format listed in the original draft, "annotated", can be applied as a feature to either structured or alphabetical lists, and isn't a complete format in and of itself).


 * There are thousands of structured "List of" pages that haven't been renamed to "Outline of" yet, and there are thousands of alphabetical "List of" pages that haven't been renamed to "Index of" yet. The WP:WPOOK and WP:WPINDEX projects are working on building cohesive sets of these, renaming them from the top of the subject tree and working their way down the tree.


 * I hope the above explanation helps.


 * 14b. Why did outlines meet so much opposition?
 * A: Well, there hasn't been a lot of opposers (far more supporters, judging from the number of editors developing or complimenting these pages), but there are a couple very loud opposers. Two or three users post most of the complaints.  Members of the outline project have been courteous for the most part, while the main opposer has called us names, lied about the project, and has been generally rude.  We patiently answer opposers point by point, and then we're accused of not listening, not understanding the other side (the positions of which are  to delete or move to portal subpages).  The frustrating part is that the main opposers don't reply to our responses.  They simply ignore them and restate the same old arguments somewhere else, even louder and ruder than before, along with the claims of not listening, not understanding, and not answering.  From our replies at WT:OUTLINE, WT:WPOOK, and WT:STAND, you can see that we do understand the issues intimately.  The main 2 opposers don't seem to care about our reasons, and resort to rhetoric (ranting and raving) rather than engaging in rational civil discussion.


 * There's an apparent contradiction between the list guidelines (WP:LISTS & WP:STAND) and WP:CFORK. Lists share the same subject name as the articles on the same subjects.  Some say this violates WP:CFORK.  But lists, and the list guidelines predate cfork.  And outlines tend be more comprehensive in scope than the corresponding subject articles, plus they're a lot easier to build and maintain than the infoboxes and nav templates used to expand article topic coverage because outlines use standard structured list formatting (headings and bullets).  Using this simpler format allows list builders to get a lot more done in less time.


 * 14c. Do you think casual users (aka non-registered general public) will ever benefit from those outline pages considered the fact that they're located in somewhat hard-to-reach places?


 * A: They're in the main namespace, which is the easiest namespace to reach them in. Since we started standardizing and renaming lists to outlines, and linking to them from articles, they're traffic has gone up.  As awareness has grown, so has traffic.  And this will continue.  The benefit to readers is huge and also will improve as the outlines are further developed and refined.  What are those benefits?  Each outline serves two purposes simultaneously and seamlessly: knowledge summarization and navigation.  Outlines show the structure of a subject and how its subtopics are related in the most efficient manner possible (via tree structure). The structure itself conveys information about the information it contains. That's the encyclopedic part (along with annotations, references, etc.).  Then there's the links.  That's the navigation part.


 * Question from
 * 15. This whole outlines issue is rather new to me (I confess to have only learned of them from reading this RfA - see my questions at Wikipedia talk:Outlines). I wonder if you could explain not why you think they're a good thing but why there doesn't seem to have been community discussion and approval before they went "live". Did you realise that outlines would be controversial and, if so, why didn't you seek to establish a consensus before going ahead?


 * A: They were already live. They just weren't called outlines.  The set of pages was built organically in the main namespace.  I started working on structured lists in 2005 (but they were here long before me), and I have been working on them ever since.  The Transhumanist  02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for The Transhumanist:
 * Edit summary usage for The Transhumanist: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in article namespace.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support I looked over this RfA and the candidate's contributions during the time before it went live and I am pleased to say that I think he will make a great administrator. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ditto. I'm very familiar with the user, and, you know, I think he'll be a trustworthy/responsible admin. It doesn't really matter to me if he's "too eager". Good. We could use more admins who are eager to work. As long as he's not going to abuse the tools, he's fine with me. I hope that more people look at his contribs instead of the number on this RfA.  hmwith t   15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per my support on the previous RfA, 16 months ago. Tan  &#124;  39  15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Seems fine to me. Sixth time's the charm? :)  Little Mountain  5   15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A quirky but inoffensive editor, who would do sterling work with the tools, probably unnoticed. Hardworking and helpful, he's managed to find some quite exceptionally odd ways to irritate participants at previous RfAs. But the bloke who gets drunk before proposing to his girlfriend isn't necessarily condemning her to living with a drunkard. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Excellent user.  Triplestop  x3  15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support While 5 failed RfAs may cause many to pause, the last was well over a year ago. I did pause, but I can't see anything that would stop me from supporting. – B.hotep •talk• 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) An exceptionally hardworking editor who has use for the tools. I agree with Dweller here entirely. While he may have offended people in the past (even the recent past), I have also noticed that he is exceptionally willing to explain himself and listen to advice from others. NW ( Talk ) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Per NW. Pmlineditor    Talk  17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support In my interactions with him at AWB, he has always been courteous. Would make a great admin. Alan16 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Some minor causes for concern, but a good candidate. Shappy   talk  17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Prodego  talk  17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support It's been over a year since one of these? Wow, time flies. Keepscases (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I can't even count how many times I've supported these ;). Good editor, will be a great addition to the team.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) I broke into a big grin when I saw this one, and I trust my grin. If something awful comes up, I'll look into it further, but I'm not expecting any surprises.  Best of luck! - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support As noted above, the number of attempts is troubling, but I reviewed the last two rfas for major red flags. Lots on minor issues, much of which has been addressed.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) SupportPer above to Malinaccier.Abce2 | Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I've changed my vote a few times during TTH's multiple candidacies, but I think it's time. Perfect Proposal 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) One of Wikipedia's most hardworking editors. I've known TT for years (in fact, he's one of the folks who more-or-less taught me how to edit), and I've been consistently impressed by his work. I think we can look past his prior issues and give him the bloody mop already! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, after some reflection. No recent matters of concern, and people, like consensus, can change.—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Per my rationale from the user's last RfA. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - I've seen The Transhumanist's contributions in various places and been impressed, and the answers to questions are good. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 24)  <font color="#007BA7">miranda  21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Great contributions and feel giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project and the user has overcame the issues raised in previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) I'm thinking I can trust him.  iMatthew  talk  at 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving to Neutral Support Why not? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support.Yep. Loads of experience. The fact that he hasn't been blocked in all this time speaks for this editors reliability. He has the patients to stick around here.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support kept his nose clean, good contributions. Not worried about the Outline thing, experience will channel efforts into better channels, methinks.  Time to finally give him the mop and send him to the spill in Aisle 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Long term contributor. Before now, I would have guessed that Transhumanist has been an admin for several years.  Royal broil  02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Quelled my initial concerns/skepticism on finding an Outline article and dealt with a difference of opinion in a very civilized manner. Prodigious contributor/organizer. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me doubt his competency. — Animum  (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. While the opposes are well thought out, overall I feel that he is sufficiently experienced to be an admin, enough for me to overlook the issues raised by the opposers. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support See nothing that makes me think there will be misuse of the tools, not persuaded by the opposes. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes_check.svg  Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, The Transhumanist. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I've come back just to vote for The Transhumanist and Killiondude.   - Jameson L. Tai  <sup style="color:#660000;"> talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good candidate, very longterm editor. I appreciate the long gap since the last RFA and consider it reasonable to ignore the old RFAs, not least because if he'd simply made a clean start his new account would probably already be an admin.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) I remain unconvinced with the oppose reasoning, as they all seem to be a general feeling of distrust rather than citing specific examples (excluding the creation of a WikiProject, but I don't have too many issues with that). He's a long-term editor who has provided plentiful good edits. My experience with the nominee has been pleasant, so I find no reason to oppose for now. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support a curious and helpful editor who I trust will overcome any perceived past grumpiness once given the responsibility of adminship. Sswonk (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support per flair for presentation and organisation of data. Opposes looked credible but after checking the links Im  only seeing you involved in the sort of contention that inevitably comes up when one trys to drive positive change. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Committed, longtime editor, can be trusted, plus I trust the nominator. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Sure, he does have his own style, but overall I trust The Transhumanist and I'm confident in his abilities and knowledge of policies and procedures. Useight (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose reluctantly. There is evidence of increased maturity, but when I occasionally see his work he still does not seem very good at understanding the concerns of other editors or explaining his own position. He has a history of starting grand projects, currently WikiProject Outline of Knowledge, without consultation and then enthusiatically and energetically pursuing them however many toes he treads on. I'm concerned that as an admin the tools may be inappropriately used, and some other users feel intimidated, in this process, especially as he gives no specific reasons for needing the tools.  Despite the huge edit count, I also think his article writing experience can be questioned. Under half of his edits are to article space, & I'm guessing the great majority of these are to lists or outlines. I've asked a supplementary to the usual Q2 on this. Neither his edit stats nor his first answer mention a conventional article.  Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, on the now expanded list I see c.189 edits to Meaning of life, & many to Suicide (all 2007), Abdominal obesity (all 2008). I haven't seen much content-adding in the few edits I've tracked down, mostly stuff like, the most recent edit to any of these articles.  But there may be stuff buried in the histories. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, strongly, per Johnbod. The entire 'outlines' project is evidence of extremely poor judgement and an attempt to duplicate massive swathes of data. One article per subject is the rule. In addition, this is the sixth RfA, and while it's true that people grow and learn, six RfAs is pushing the limit as far as I am concerned. → ROUX   ₪  21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Adding to my oppose: I had somehow missed the fact that Transhumanist was responsible for the Awards Center mess. All of a sudden, the behaviour around the whole OOK thing makes sense, and as noted below, he has clearly learned nothing since. So not just an oppose, but hell no, this person should never be an admin on Wikipedia anytime before the Sun goes nova. →  ROUX   ₪  16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, those RfA's are wiped clean (except to see if there are any lingering trends.) The number has ZERO impact for me because the most recent one was almost a year and a half ago.  The number of RfA's namely a concern when dealing with somebody who seems overly eager to get the bit or fails to show the ability to learn.  By waiting this long between attempts, IMO, he has shown the stability that his failed attempts do not count against him at all.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree. In any case, the OOK project would be more than enough to oppose over, particularly his utter inability to even grant the vaguest hint that maybe critics might have a point and refusal to answer simple questions about it. It shows an appalling lack of judgement and complete inability to listen to others. OOK is bad for Wikipedia, primarily because it is less than useless to readers--people keep forgetting that the readers are paramount here, not the 10K or so navel-gazers (self included) who run the place. Anyone who is championing something that is actively detrimental to the project while refusing to comprehend that people opposing it have a good point should never be given the tools, period. → ROUX   ₪  23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The OOK project is something that I have no problem with your opposing... I am not familiar enough with it to weigh in on the merits, but I do think it is a fallacy to have a uniform category to oppose based upon an arbitrary category. I mean, to oppose merely because the person has had RfA's in the distant past, would be tantamount to opposing due to self nom ;-)  I believe in redemption... all sins can be forgiven, the question is the amount of time and amount of effort required for said redemption.  16 months in my opinion is enough time that his contributions should be weighed on those merits without regard issues identified a year and a half ago.  I mean, we could, in theory have people running for 'crat who weren't even editing the last time trans ran.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even the most ardent critic of the OOK project recognizes that "outlines can be extremely useful for editors and especially for WikiProjects." His main concerns are that the outlines are in the wrong namespace, and are being overpromoted. You're the first editor I've seen call them "useless". I'd suggest that by overstating the problem, you undermine your own goal (presuming your goal is increased scrutiny and debate). I'm a reader as well as an editor, and I found Outline of forestry and Outline of anarchism to be interesting, educational, and helpful in providing mental-frameworks for better understanding the topics. Some of the less-developed outlines need a lot of work, and some, perhaps, should be rethought altogether. But that's a discussion that belongs elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That quote is out of context, he is far from the most ardent critic--I, for one, gave up due to the impenetrable walled garden of blather and circular logic that the entire crew of you throws up against any criticism. You also presume wrong about my goal, as my goal is to have the entire stupid OOK project deleted. Fork Wikipedia to your own webspace and make all the duplicate articles that will please you. Here? No. → ROUX   ₪  16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I thought I would be the only one to oppose primarily over the Outline of Knowledge bit, but evidently I'm in some kind of company (good or bad). The OoK project sprung up from nowhere, and while there was what I feel legitimate concern over the speed and rationale behind the proliferation Trans barreled ahead with it anyhow. The majority of his edits are to outlines (see the talk page printout), which I and many others feel constitutes a shadow wikipedia of questionable utility and practicality. There's no evidence of substantial audited content contributions(note) and the user has a very vague answer for what he'd use the tools for—something I didn't expect considering all the previous RfAs. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As a >=4th RfA. Nothing I see here prompts me to change my default position on such repeated requests for adminship. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I have seen nothing to indicate this editor has a clear understanding of what being an admin is: from his ill-conceived admin school, through the (also now deleted) Awards center, which he began, then moved to another's userspace prior to the deletion discussion; it appears that the Transhumanist, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally ill suited for the mop and broom. He has more recently created the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge, which while an improvement over previous efforts still shows more sympathy for organization and regimentation (and as several have noted, duplication) than any particular bent for what I would consider admin skills, or "clue" as it is sometimes called. I had hoped that somewhere along the way he'd become more amenable to feedback; Roux's concern that TTH has an "utter inability to even grant the vaguest hint that maybe critics might have a point and refusal to answer simple questions" is uncannily similar to concerns I voiced as long ago as his second Rfa. While it is true we do not judge based upon the number of previous Rfas, if concerns raised then, which prompted oppose views, have not been addressed, then we must in good conscience oppose again. With regret - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Sorry, and I really am, even though this RFA has a good chance of passing, but my opinion has got to go in this column. I've had concerns for some time about your level of maturity for a long time, and while I can't provide any examples off hand (I will do so if asked to, but I'd have to go looking), and I am uncomfortable with handing you a mop. The OOK Wikiproject somewhat irritates me. It's a good idea, but every article on Wikipedia now seems to have a shadow article, "Outline of X". The AWC was a very poor idea, as I voiced around 15 months ago. All in all, these factors, as well as others, lead me to question just how much of an asset you would be as an administrator. I applaud your long service to Wikipedia, and your many contributions, but I remain unconvinced that you have the clue, and the judgment to be an administrator. Sorry. <font face="Forte"> Steve Crossin   <font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking.... 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Firstly there is not clear explanation of how this user will use the tools and their last 3-4000 edits doesn't show then involved in anything that would require them to do so. That means that I cannot judge how they would use the tools apart for theior disastrous attempts a non-admin closing AFDs some time back that showed they had no idea of how to apply consensus according to policies. What I do expect is admins or admin candidates to help keep the drama level down so I was disappointed with what I did find in a trawl through The Transhumanist's contributions; Unreasonable badgering of delete voters in an AFD ; Assumptions of bad faith against another user and appearance of holding a vendetta ; Patronising comments "You are supposed to assume good faith" & "I'll try to explain things more clearly", this was followed up by what seemed to be a revenge listing at ANI against that user that they did not notify the user about  and which they couldn't be bothered to participate in once it was clear the discussion about the other user hadn't gained traction. So this shows, refusal to take other user's concerns seriously, condescension to opposing viewpoints; lack of courtesy in informing of noticeboard complaints, pettiness and no evidence whatsoever of them attempting to act in an admin like way in resolving the dispute rather the escalating it to an ANI. This is far from what I want from an admin candidate and I must therefore Oppose. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. While the candidate has improved, I share concerns about his approach of implementing projects without sufficient consultation. Also, his conduct in the AfD linked by Spartaz was badgering. PhilKnight (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, while I do appreciate your consistent effort, I'm not entirely comfortable. The previous opposes make me pause, but I don't know enough about the situation to comment on that, however I am still skeptical of someone who is up to their sixth RfA. Sorry. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Changing to Strong oppose. The attitude expressed here, creating battlegrounds and using such charged rhetoric in order to garner support is not appropriate for administrators; we aren't meant to increase the amount of Wikiconflict. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Per all the above concerns, particularly with regard to the Outlines Project. Judging from some of the candidate's interactions with other users over this issue, I'd say he still lacks the common sense necessary to be an admin. The links Spartaz posted are very revealing. He obviously still suffers from the attitude of "It's my way or the high way". --Folantin (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose for the Glaciers of Senegal, that is, Outlines... enough said already. My sincere respect goes to the lone warrior for a hopeless cause, but TH's lone quest is precisely the reason to oppose. I expect significant conflict of interest, broadly taken: you cannot maintain a purportedly all-inclusive, controversial project and remain uninvolved in administrative matters. NVO (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) I've put a fair bit of thought into this one; I entirely agree with Balloonman that events of two years ago are irrelevant in this case, and there are a lot of names in the support section which I respect. But it comes down to another OOK oppose, I'm afraid. There's nothing wrong with having ideas - the development of every project is driven by people having ideas of varying quality, of which the best are chosen and the rest discarded. But seeing the increasingly hysterical posts on the talkpage ("the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages", "While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes" etc) makes it appear to me that this is another Award Center situation, where you're going to dig in your heels and dismiss any opposition as "illegitimate" regardless of merit, and refuse to listen to anyone criticising the serious issues raised by what is, in effect, creating a shadow "super-simple Wikipedia" of duplicate pages. The very fact that only three days ago you set up your own WPOOK Awards Center makes it appear pretty clear to me that you've learned none of the lessons from last year. I think there's far too much risk that you with admin tools would be using them to defend your pet project(s) - I have no doubt at all that you're acting in good faith, but you seem to be far too convinced that your opinions always coincide with what's in the best interests of the project. – iride  scent  15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't count for any more with the closing crat, but escalating to strong oppose in light of the string of "everyone else did it one way, and I did it another way - that means everyone else must be wrong" replies you've just given to Q14 and its sub-questions. If this is your attitude, then I really don't trust you not to do what you "know is best", regardless of what everyone else thinks. – iride  scent  01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Like some of the above, I too have repeatedly wondered about the attitude I saw in your postings. In addition to some diffs mentioned above, in particular by \/, I remember  you left for numerous members of WP:ADOPT, talking about leaving portals "in the dust by the end of the year", and "Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice. [...] Please recommend [...] ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors." I believe the reason why members of WP:ADOPT received this message was because they like giving advice. You'd certainly make a good PR person, and I certainly don't question your good intentions, but I don't think that attitude is a desirable trait in an admin.  Amalthea  16:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per Folantin. Nakon  16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Long history of poor judgement and generally nonsensical behavior. Friday (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per KillerC and Spartaz. -- Deville (Talk) 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Friday, Iridescent and the never ending saga of The Transhumanist creating distraction after distraction. If we have every article we could ever need, and all those articles were as good as they possibly could be, then perhaps it would be OK to create a whole slew of projects to layout the knowledge contained within Wikipedia in a new way, as it is, OoK is just another hiding to nothing, trying to create outlines of knowledge without actually finishing collating all that knowledge within the existing articles in the first instance. I honestly dread to think what The Transhumanist would do with the protection and block tools if he was given the bit, I am genuinely concerned the tools would be used in the best interests of your present and future projects, not the best interests of the project as a whole. Nick (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm sure that you would wikignome plenty, but my concern is similar to Nick's - when, every 6-12 months, a new "Great Idea" surfaces, I'm not sure access to the tools is the best thing. Martinp23 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per the 2nd part of Nick's remark above. I don't have a firm point of view on many of your projects/causes, and I deeply respect passionate enthusiasm and motivation of a broader group of people towards a common goal. But I get nervous if that passion becomes a "damn the opposition" approach and I share the concern that having the mop would provide tantalizing new tools to push ahead with your latest scheme, whatever that would be. Martinp (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - sorry, but there are just so many reasons. I really wouldn't know where to begin. The above is a good start. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. The candidate has a history of barreling through projects even when concerns are raised. I don't feel comfortable putting admin tools in the candidate's hands. Last year when I MfD'd the Award Center, the owner immediately distributed the AWC newsletter where The Transhumanist added a notice of the MfD (sorry, admins only) in a coordinated canvassing attempt. This, combined with the language on the OOK page about getting more supporters to enter the discussion, creates a worrying and ongoing pattern of behavior. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, mainly per Spartaz and Irid'. The candidate has some admirable skils which, unfortunately IMO, have been largely directed into starting, pushing and abandoning a succession of dodgy projects. What really concerns me, however, is that his responses to those involved in the many issues that arise from them show so many instances of problematic attitude and behaviour. These persistent attempts at RfA show a strong desire for the tools but not the maturity nor the judgment to safely use them. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) I really, really hate to oppose any good faith editor, and I seldom do so unless I really giving them the tools is a good idea. Looking over the opposition above, though, there appears to be a history of hasty decision making and drama - he's probably matured a great deal since his last RfA (which, after reading it over, it's pretty clear why it was snowballed), so it probably shouldn't really be held against him now. That said, the other concerns that are outlined above show that there lingers a certain degree of callowness which leads me to have an uncomfortable feeling supporting TTH at this time. I'm really sorry, I wish it were not so.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) OPPOSE - the ook project is fine. But TH's responses to people aout the ook project are sub-optimal.  Other editors involved in that project give reasoned responses, TH tends to make matters worse. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose.  Whoa.  It's been said very well above (by Roux, Fuchs, Chihuahua, Crossin, Spartaz, Amalthea, Laser brain, Plutonium, et alii).  No.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I came to this RFA planning on supporting until I read the opposes. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Close it, please - The Transhumanist 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral This is no reason to oppose. And Im not. but Question 8 worries me a bit. public terminals at Universities (and schools) in my opinion are hot beds for wiki vandals (alot of people i see on wiki at my university are doing just that) and if you regularly edit from specific terminals there someone may notice. Call me paranoyed if you want, but by chance you forget to logout one day, or even step away for a moment. Alot of damage can be done prior to the account being blocked. Maybe im relating this to my university and not understanding yours so well, but like i said this is no real reason to oppose, but i cant support either. These are what ifs. Im just not convinced on the security for public terminals at university libraries despite what some people say and im not comfortably reassured that the account wont be hacked. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2009 (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.