Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Humus sapiens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Humus_sapiens

FINAL (114/2/2) ended 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Humus_sapiens (talk • contribs) – Humus has been a wiki editor since November of 2003. I have run accross him on numerous occasions on VFDs, articles relating to Judaism and military history, and the occasional RC patrol. I happened to be looking at Wikipedia:List_of_non-admins_with_high_edit_counts, and noticed Humus on the list with 11,000+ edits. I know it's almost cliche at this point, but the first thing I said was wow - I can't believe he's not an administrator already. Humus has contributed to all aspects of the wikipedia space, contributing text, pictures, and level headed discourse when necesarry. I have always found Humus to be accomodating, honest, and a supporter of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Humus has been proven time and time again as a good vandal fighter, VFD contributor, and editor. Let's give him a mop (and a bucket if he so desires), and let him continue. --Bachrach44 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for considering me for the nomination. I accept, being aware that more power entails more responsibilities. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator, I entirely agree with everything I wrote above. --Bachrach44 21:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. Very good editor, will make a brilliant admin; this is a long overdue nomination, which I'm pleased to support. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support per nominator. Humus sapiens is a brilliant and prolific editor and will make a good admin. Pecher Talk 21:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. So, why *isn't* he an admin already? I don't get RfA sometimes. Stevage 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Fair-minded, dedicated contributor with plenty of excellent work behind him and hopefully much more ahead. Palmiro | Talk 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good calm editor, and well versed in policy. Will use tools wisely. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, it's about time! One of Wikipedia's best! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Reviewed this editors contributions and decided that he is qualified and trustworthy for extra tools.--Dakota ~ 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, excellent choice; bold yet accommodating and works well with others. And yes, long overdue. Ramallite (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong qualifications, unlikely to abuse the tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, definitely. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support: good editor, well-qualified (and I like the earthy name). Jonathunder 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, everything seems to be in order. Royboycrashfan 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, a strong and unbiased editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, good experienced editor. Kimchi.sg | talk 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support: excellent combination of strong editorial skills, good community involvement, and even-handed user interactions. -- MarcoTolo 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Great work so far! DarthVader 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Can't see a single reason why not. Redux 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support (with extra measure for clever Latinity in his user name). Bucketsofg 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - no problems seen -- Tawker 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - I just love this guy. Tijuana Brass 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, an outstanding candidate. It surprises me that it took this long for him to be nominated. Rje 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Joe I 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Wholeheartedly. (^'-')^ Covington 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Dedicated editor. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support JoshuaZ 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 03:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Many of those users are non-active or are banned sockpuppets and/or vandal accounts. It also isn't at all obvious to me that anything is intrinsically wrong with the above numbers. Pointing to backlog is one thing. Pointing to numbers that look bad from a naive perspective is different. Your comment about 30 days is essentially a policy proposal and so should be discussed on the general RfA talk page, not here. JoshuaZ 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support clicheX2, I can't believe this guy isn't an editor. Patman2648 04:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Blues Power
  31. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support A level-headed and very consistent editor. Kukini 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Probably can be trusted not to abuse tools, admin is no big deal. Mike (T C) 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. support. Yup, another good one. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, yes, looks good to me too. JIP | Talk 05:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. A booming voice says, "Wrong, cretin!", and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust. Alphax τεχ 05:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. I have reviewed this user's contributions and statistics, and he seems like a great user. --Danaman5 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strong support. Finaly an editor who understands what NPOV is all about. Zeq 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Worked with him on an article articles, looked at his other work. Will be a good admin. -- Heptor talk 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. -- tasc talkdeeds 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Experienced and trustworthy editor. Xoloz 16:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Per above. Computerjoe's talk 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support as per Xoloz. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Will make a good admin. Jkelly 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support. User:Humus sapiens will be a tremendous asset as an admin! drboisclair 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support per the clichés above. --Eivindt@c 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support this could get a lot of votes Robdurbar 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. A very appropriate nomination. --Ian Pitchford 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Make him an Admin? Make him a prince of the Hawkmen! The Land 20:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Definitely •Jim62sch• 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support per nom, solid record of contributions. --Elkman - (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong support Solid editor. _-M o P-_ 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg per above. —Khoikhoi 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support ton of edits and very expericenced. I'm suprised you are'nt already an admin. The Republican 01:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Good editor. Should be good administrator. FloNight talk 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Tempted to oppose out of sheer cliche hatred. But instead I'll cast my scorn upon the perpetrators, support', and admit to my own surprise. Derex 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. El_C 02:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Well rounded. Masssiveego 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Basically like a clone of me, only smarter, more patient and religious. Would I trust myself to be an admin? Of course! --Chodorkovskiy 06:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support, and hope rollbacks will be accompanied with a message on the vandal's talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-20 08:24Z
  63. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support this well-balanced editor. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support per Dakota. --tickle me 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support a fine editor. --Marskell 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  67. Very Strong Support I've enjoyed working with him tremenously. He has helped to achieve comprimises often. --CTSWyneken 16:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Very positive experiences working on difficult subjects. Kaisershatner 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support - 11,000 edits is a huge number compared to the average person who requests adminship, the answers to the questions seemed quite suitable too. I see no problem.--Andeee 17:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. Curious why he isn't already an admin. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support--StabiloBoss 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support --Andy123(talk) 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support For goodness sake, if Hs isn't an admin, no one else should be. A slam-dunk. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support Moe ε 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  75. Strong support, Really he deserves to be a sysop. A very great contributor. Shyam (T/C) 21:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support, this user has done well. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Excellent editor, will be a great admin. gidonb 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support nice work. — Deckiller 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  79. Strong support. As should be expected with the candidate's roughly fifty million edits, I've seen this guy around. I have little doubt that he would better the project. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support, can't say anything more than has already been said. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support, per nominator and for standing up to loaded questions. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support this experienced user. Conscious 08:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support - Just one comment; it shouldn't be the case that the comment 'he has 11,000 edits' should be followed by the though 'I can't believe he's not an editor already'. Admin status is not an edit count trophy. - Richardcavell 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support. User has been ready for the mop for quite some time.--Adam (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support, yep. Proto||type 12:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, as eminently qualified. Handling of additional 'questions' was good, too. Mild amusement at the nominator's observation that "he's not an editor already". -Splashtalk 12:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support--Jusjih 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  88. Strong Support to this tireless 6-days-a-week contributor. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. Of course. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  90. Definite Support. +sj + 18:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support --Tone 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  92. Guettarda 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  93. Jaranda wat's sup 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. SorryGuy 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. - Darwinek 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. --Rory096(block) 17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support --Deville (Talk) 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support only 2 votes to go :) //Halibutt 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support. Hooray for pile-ons. --tomf688{talk} 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  100. WP:100 Support!!! Yeahy. Good editor, would make great admin. Tangotango 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support Good guy, very patient. Hey I just pushed you over 100, do I win a cookie??? TruthCrusader 10:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  102. Can't find the block I know I issued you support Will (E@) T 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  103. support: Ombudsman 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  105. Belated Support My observations of this admin candidate have been good. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support seems to be a fine editor. Shlomke 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support Nobody is perfect, but the aprpoach demonstrated to difficult topics is better than many and cooperative. Midgley 09:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support. the wub "?!" 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support - Chairman S. Talk 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  111. Hot support. Great editor. JFW | T@lk 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  112. Despite his having been locked in a stasis tube for 30+ years, and the fact that each use of his powers leads to the death of a random human somewhere on the planet, I vote support. DS 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. —Aiden 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support tons of experience! └UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose based on the answer to question number 4. In the dispute as to whether administrators should have more say over the content of an article than their subordinates, I side with the administrators. I support candidates that subscribe and openly espouse this position. --American Saga 02:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:ADMIN has, in the second paragraph, the following:
"From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but should be a part of the community like anyone else only equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone was entrusted them."
In light of this guideline, I'm not sure your statement "administrators should have more say over the content of an article than their subordinates" has much place. Admins are editors-with-tools, equals-with-tools, if you will. But not editors-more-equal-than-others (to paraphrase Mr. Orwell). -- MarcoTolo 02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read WP:ADMIN, and it is a good piece of marketing, but reality comes from the organization of a community, not from words on a page. Reality is that admins get promoted from below, but demoted from above. For that reason, one has to keep an entirely different set of people happy to remain an administrator as to gain admin status. Immediately one has to shift gears from being a representative of the people to a loyal member of the good ole boys club. As a result, there is an extreme disconnect between expectations that editors have of their administrators and the reality of the situation. It isn't likely that Wikipedia will develop a method of voting an administrator out of office any time soon, so the only solution is to openly espouse the truth: that administrators have the final say over the content of articles. When we promise people one thing, and deliver another, we're going to get vandals, and by God, we have a lot of them. --American Saga 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out the Humus did not explicitly say he would "side" with anyone - he said that valuable edits would be welcome, regardless of the source, and essentially that he would move to a compromise. This is, IMHO, the right answer. --Bachrach44 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If I understand American Saga's position, "a member of the arbitration committee" is always right, to the point that other opinions should be purged. I disagree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Weakest possible Oppose It does not appear that mine will be the deciding vote. Therefore, I’m reserving for myself the distinction of being the only editor to oppose the nomination by a ratio of over 100:1. I do so because as the vote shows, he’s everyone’s friend, including mine! If Wikipedia were a social club, I’d nominate him for President. Admittedly, I’ve only observed his behavior on a limited number of topics for a fairly short period of time. Yet, I’ve noticed what in my judgment is a pattern of compromising quality when there’s a risk to his “Political” standing in the community. In addition to his numerous and outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, I believe this partly explains why he will be (almost) universally confirmed for adminship.Doright 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    Do you have any diffs that demonstrate this "pattern of compromising quality"? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I have not interacted with Humus sapiens in a significant fashion except on the article IRmep via an anonymous IP. On this article, he passively let the user User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg be disruptive and push into the article unsourced opinions. It is my feeling that User:SlimVirgin also facilitated Moshe by blocking people Moshe was revert waring with -- see User_talk:64.230.120.237. IRmep is a pro-Arab organization which contrasts with the pro-Israel POV that is shared by both User:Humus sapiens, User:SlimVirgin, and User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg. Neither User:SlimVirgin or User:Humus sapiens discouraged Moshe about his disruptive behavior or stopped it -- that only occured when a neutral administrator came in (i.e. User:Bastique.) This episode disturbed me significantly since it demonstrates that Humus sapiens has a significant and worrisome blind spot, especially for an administrator. See most of Talk:Institute_for_Research:_Middle_Eastern_Policy for the details. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (I have ~1800 edits to Wikipedia now, I can prove this privately if so desired -- I tend to not sign-in and I hop IPs on each PC reboot.)
    It may be useful for you to know that your above comments carry zero weight with me because you haven't provided a single diff as evidence to support your interpretation of events. Seriously, I take a very dim view of people who make charges impugning the reputation of others while not providing evidence. If we were in court, the judge might say, put up or shut up. ;) However, I take an even dimmer view of the fact that you have deprived me of my single claim to Wikipedia fame by opposing this nomination.Doright 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'll try. The main issue was that Moshe insisted that the lead of this article contain the claim that the organization was just an "anti-Israel website" or an "anti-Zionist website" but he didn't have any sources to back this up and there were many that showed otherwise. Here are the various additions of this claim into the lead and two of my moves of this claim further down with a "citation needed" tag: Moshe: [1], Moshe: [2], Moshe: [3], Pecher: [4], I added it with a [citation needed] to it: [5], Moshe didn't like my tentativeness: [6], Moshe: [7], Pecher: [8], I tried to put a [citation needed] on it: [9], Moshe didn't like my tentativeness: [10], Moshe: [11], Moshe: [12]. Throughout this "battle" Humus sapiens was passive with regards to Moshe's behavior although HS did make a number of supportive comments on the talk page. Early on HS said that "I find IRMEP's claims of neutrality pathetic. We should not legitimize this (or any, for that matter) organization based on unreliable sources." -see diff [13]. I then put together a RfC with lots of reputable support here [Talk:Institute_for_Research:_Middle_Eastern_Policy#RfC_Summary] - see diff [14]. Later Humus sapiens continued to passively supported Moshe's continued readdition of this claim such as this response of his when I complainted to him about Moshe's behavior being inappropriate: "I don't see how Moshe is more disruptive or is engaging in vandalism than you are." - see diff [15]. I felt that Humus sapiens passively supported Moshe's unsourced addition and bullying because they shared the same ideological view -- Wikipedia rules be damned. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I should add, just because this can be a touchy subject with a potential for misunderstanding, I have no problems if it is discovered that this organization is just plain anti-Semitic, anti-Israel or anti-Zionist but to make such a strong claim one needs to have a WP:RS not just a strong personal convinction based upon WP:OR. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Undecided based upon shifting standards. This good editor writes in a narrow range of articles and is supported by those who oppose CTSWyneken's nomination "because he writes in a narrow range of articles." Why does that disqualify one, but not the other? --StanZegel (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    A few points: First, it is fallacious for you to support or oppose due to other individuals lack of consistency. Second, Humus has many more edits than CTSWyneken (by a factor of about 5) and so narrow focus matters less simply by general spill-over. Third, I suspect that for some editors(certainly me) in the case of CTSW, the narrow focus was the final straw of a problematic candidate. JoshuaZ 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, I have voted in support of CTSWyneken's nomination. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    One of the differences between the two editors is that Humus has an edits/page average of 4.6 whereas CTSWyneken is 9.6, so the latter clearly has a very narrow focus, which is one of the reasons he's being opposed and Humus is being supported (only one of many reasons). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Let me add that I have just voted for Humus because he is a very fine editor and I believe his ability to broker comprimises will be enhanced by adminship. It does not matter to me at all that his edit range is narrow. To me, it means he's a careful scholar. Also, it is irrelevant to me if different standards are applied to me and to him, even if that is so. --CTSWyneken 16:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    His edit range is not narrow, and different standards are not being applied between you and him. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Althogh Humus has his areas of greater knowledge (which we all do), I don't think you can accuse him of narrowness at all. He had put in countless hours and edits for the cause of vandal fighting, VFDs, and other more "general" activities. A quick check of interiot's tool will reveal that there is almost no area of the wiki-space he has not contributed to heavily. --Bachrach44 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Appears to be a bit of a topic specialist, 4.6 edits per page being rather high. The guy has been here for 2 and a half years, which is good, but I see a 3RR block only two months ago, which is bad. If I had more information on the actual circumstances (block summary doesn't specify which page, even), I might be inclined to change my vote. — Apr. 20, '06 [09:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Hi Fon, not trying to change your mind, but I just wanted to comment that a 4.6 average isn't high at all; in fact, it's about perfect in my view. Too much lower may indicate an editor who hasn't made a substantial contribution to any article(s); too much higher could be an editor who edits within too narrow a range. I always think 5 is just about right. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    The 3RR report is here, and it looks as though it may have been a misunderstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link. Looking at the full history of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, it appears he reverted five times in two days. Reverts 2, 3, 4, and 5 occurred within 25 hours, 33 minutes of each other, which is close enough as far as I'm concerned (letter vs. spirit). He reverted two more times a couple days later, then left it alone until last week, when he almost broke the 3RR again. I don't feel quite comfortable supporting at this time. I realize it's just a lame edit war over one piece of information, but it's not a good habit to get into, and can lead to improper use of admin tools if not kept in check. I'd encourage the candidate to take a break from topics that he would otherwise feel the need to edit war on. — Apr. 20, '06 [17:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Yes, in my 2.5 years here I've been blocked once. The admin who's done it (User:Sceptre) admitted that he was wrong: [16]. FoN, thank you for the advice. I think we all agree that Wikipedia should not be used to disseminate hatred and lies. In some cases I had to choose what I considered the lesser evil. AFAIK, I kept within the limits of the rules, including 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A small footnote is that same administrator that erroneously blocked Humus also did the same to me and then apoligized. I would contend that this shows they weren't just questionable blocks but the product of inattentiveness on the part of sceptre.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Upkeeping our policies and standards. I hope to be able to handle anything thrown at me (real life permitting). I would like to assist other editors in our common job: to improve WP. I imagine that would include continued dealing with vandalism. Also, protections, deletions, merges and other maintenance issues. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I love biographies. I'm proud to have contributed to a few bios of the Category:Soviet dissidents and related articles such as Enemy of the people and Samizdat. Articles on the First Jewish-Roman War and the Bar Kokhba's revolt had to be written. Some time ago, the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was in a pretty bad shape, but as a result of our common efforts it reached the status of FA. When I started the article on Ehud Olmert, I couldn't have imagined that it would propel him to the prime ministership chair, but such is the power of WP these days. :) ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I am not shying away from controversial topics. Sure, sometimes it leads to edit conflicts, but I try not to make it personal/assume good faith and hash out arguments at talk. Let me shamelessly quote my own user page: "I believe that converting the heat of raw emotions into the light of encyclopedic knowledge may alleviate animosity, if done within the framework of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines based on Wikipedia:Five pillars." I cherish our community here and believe that most edit conflicts can get resolved through discussion: bring reputable sources, seek reasonable compromises, build consensus and negotiate wording. Humor goes long ways, but if nothing else works, there is WP:DR. How do I avoid stress? Switch to unrelated article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield or compromise. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by American Saga (talk • contribs).
A: This seems like another permutation of Masssiveego's 1st question: editor A vs. editor B. I don't see why we should exclude conflicting opinions: we can always say that authority X said this but authority Y said that, given that their sources are reputable and verifiable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Masssiveego 07:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I often oppose on either no responses, or response past 24 hours.

  1. If you were admin, an angel, a prophet, and a priest all claiming that you must do something on Wikipedia behalf of your deity. One the page you was to work on they all contradict each other, the angel say save, the prophet say delete, the priest says rewrite a page. Who do you believe, and obey?
    • This is a tricky question since 1) I prefer not to mix my own personal beliefs and my editing, and 2) I am not a sufferer of Dissociative identity disorder. I guess I'd ask them to cite their authorities and see whose source is more reputable, per WP criteria. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Why?
    • Because I think WP:RS and WP:V would apply best in this unbelievable (pun intended) case.←Humus sapiens ну? 03:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Under what policy is an edit derivative work, placed under the same copyright in Wikipedia?
Pardon, is there a point to this? Certainly, these aren't questions one expects Humus to answer. Additionally, they are out of place here. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely, I want to know if he will make a good admin. I expect humus sapiens to either risk answering, or choose to accept that I will vote oppose for not answering. Masssiveego 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, multiple problems with this. First, an RfA is not a game theory problem where the candidates need to make risk assesments. When candidates need to star thinking about pay-off matrices something is seriously wrong. Furthermore, your first question is borderline incoherent but among other issues seems to assume that everyone worships exactly 1 deity. Or am I to understand that if a candidate doesn't that you would then oppose them? Frankly, the question reads like a badly formed riddle. Is the next RfA going to have a question where the candidate needs to deal with a city of liars and a city of truth tellers or will it be even more obscure? JoshuaZ 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. I generally test them on their actions.
  2. The Admin canidate will demonstrate in my questions characteristics of what I believe is a good admin, or be opposed. I will be developing a battery of vandal tests in the future to see if they can detect the vandalism if that is your question. Masssiveego 05:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And you think that a question involving angels and prophets somehow helps you determine whether they will make a good admin? (and no my second comment had nothing to do with vandalism, it was a reference to various logic puzzles which your question bears superficial resemblance, I suggest that further discussion of this matter occur on my talk page). JoshuaZ 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, but have you (Massiveego) ever supported anyone? Humus sapiens has answered these questions admirably, but from your previous activities on Rfa apparently no-one meets your criteria. If you have actually supported someone, please tell me who, because I for one must have missed it if you ever did. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Massiveego has supported at least one RfA, and from my recollection the number is ~several (Petros471, Circaeus, and Hoary from the recent set). That being said, I think the demand for ~24 turnaround is overly harsh and pushes the bounds of civility. Syrthiss 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss Masssiveego's voting patterns. Please continue the discussion on the RfA talk page or contact him directly. ~MDD4696 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The above 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Humus_sapiens_d981.html"