San Lorenzo de Almagro and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Humus sapiens: Difference between pages

Humus_sapiens

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Humus sapiens|action=edit}} Vote here] (61/0/1) ending 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 editor 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. --Siva1979^{Talk 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 ^talk_deeds 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. --Eivind^t@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. File: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)

Oppose

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)

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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Comments

• See Humus_sapiens's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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)

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?
   • I'm not sure I got the question. Is this about Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, is there a point to this? Certainly, these aren't questions one expects Humus to answer. Additionally, they are out of place here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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)