Wikipedia:Editor review/ScienceApologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] User:ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) I want to be an administrator to be as efficient as possible. ScienceApologist 12:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Review by Jcam

Hello, ScienceApologist. I am Jcam and here is my review:

  • Wow. You certainly have enough edits. It's not likely anyone could oppose a nomination on the grounds of lack of quantity of edits. Nor could anyone say you have a lack of quality edits, since you have not one, but two articles you brought to FA status. I feel somewhat inadequate in reviewing you as I have a mere 1000 edits.
  • I do have a lot of experience voting in Rfa's so I know what they are like. And sometimes people can be against you for reasons they don't really state in the Rfa. In your case, I could see a lot of voters going against you because of your strongly held opinions and beliefs. And being controversial, although you may be right, never helps an Rfa. I think there are two things which most Rfa voters look at: (1) the editor aspects (2) the interpersonal aspects. You pass the first test with flying colors. The second test- well, it appears you need more work. Here's some suggestions:
    • Decide if being an administrator is all that important to you. The "mop" is the symbol because it can often be a dirty, thankless job. As an editor sans the mop, you have a lot more leeway in the things you do. With the mop, you become almost a "target" subject to personal attacks, ones you must keep your cool about since you, to many people, represent the project. So just a thought...
    • I've seen the areas which you have been editing in... they are controversial ones. Get away from them for a little bit. Make it your goal to just simply browse wikipedia for an entire session which you normally would spend doing heavy editing. Sure, log in, and fix any small problems you may see (spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc), but you're main goal is to find areas of Wikipedia, topics which you haven't ventured into. Perhaps you may find some other area of interest far away from science/psuedo-science topics which interest you. And then do your contributing there for a while, quietly and efficiently.
    • As an administrator, you will be called upon to be unbiased. Because of your history of edits, you may have to go the extra mile to prove you can be NPOV (which, granted, from your standpoint, you are because you stick to what scientific observation tells you). Start patrolling articles you normally would not touch. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, these are all articles which are heavily vandalised. Add them to your watch list and revert people who mess with these articles. It would be a good way to show the community that even though you have opinions, you would protect those articles as diligently as any of the ones you have contributed to.
    • Stick to the 1RR. Don't get into arguments with people over edits. Simply have a discussion on the talk page and have faith that eventually things will sort themselves out. Getting into revert wars and getting all bent out of shape does not get things sorted out any quicker.

I hope this was helpful. Any questions, feel free to contact me. Jcam 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Dar-Ape

  • Well, Jcam has stated some of my thoughts as well. Working well with other editors is an integral part of improving articles as well as being an administrator. You should certainly always strive to act friendly and helpful, but no one is perfect. If you do run into another not-so-nice dispute, I would suggest that after smoothing things over with an editor(s) involved, you may want to consider doing some "good karma" actions-- try helping out users on the Help Desk, the Science Reference Desk, or any other positively oriented actions such as these. It is sometimes easy to forget that while many users uphold the highest ideals in thought, their actions often seem bad simply because of newness or unintentional mistakes; yet as an administrator, you must be a model of good faith, helpfulness, and patience. Of course, though, helping in these venues is only a suggestion, and all choice ultimately belongs to you. Cheers, Dar-Ape 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Review by ReyBrujo

  • Hello there, ScienceApologist. Here is my review, I hope it is useful for you.
    • I see you always use summaries and they are pretty descriptive ones. Keep it up!
    • Good working making improving those articles to featured status. That is probably one thing I would not be able to achieve in a long time to come, thus I really admire people who is able to do it.
    • Most of the opposing votes for your prior nomination was because of a very short statement. I hope next time you will try to give more information about why you want the tools. As I say, someone needs to demonstrate that a need for the tools exists, and short statements are usually not welcomed. Just to point out, you just used 12 words for this review statement.
    • Talking about becoming an administrator, I would like to hear why you need the administrator tools. You don't appear to do enough vandalism revert to require a rollback function, nor have reports to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. There are no requests to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and just 50 edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and 2 in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion back in June. You have participation in requests for comments and arbitration, however you do not need to become an administrator to join the Committee. I usually say that I believe there are two kind of administrators, those who are article-oriented and those who are user-oriented. Article-oriented ones answer calls at Requests for page protection, close different XFD discussions, are in charge of the different categories for deletion (speedy deletions, orphaned images, etc), etc. User-oriented administrators prefer to answer calls to Administrator intervention against vandalism, reverting and warning users, track down users who may be using sockpuppets, and answering the different administrator noticeboards.
    You are an excellent editor, and you would make a good administrator, but you need to demonstrate a real need for the tools. While it is possible your RFA would be successful, personally I don't see a reason to support you unless you need the tools. Some more interaction with other users, especially while fighting vandalism, could be helpful for those checking you. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you not look at my contributions? I have asked for page protection on numerous occasions! I have also nominated dozens of articles for deletion (back when it was VfD and not AfD). Have you looked carefully through my contributions? Without the admin tools, I find that it means that I don't have the time to go through the ridiculous typing required to do simple tasks, so I tend to avoid pages where I don't have the tools. This is a Catch-22 situation. I'm not going to spend time on AfD when I don't have the mop and bucket. I'm not going to get the mop and bucket unless I spend more time on AfD. That's some really poor reasoning, if you ask me. --ScienceApologist 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
When reviewing, I look at the last 5,000 edits. From what I see, you edited at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection three times ([1] [2] and [3]). As I said, I have only looked at your last 5,000 edits, which cover since the second week of May 2006 until now, almost 6 months of editing. Consider this: in 6 months, you have three edits at page protection request and 50 edits at articles for deletion. There is no need for participating in AFDs if you don't like them and/or won't be closing AFDs. However, I did not see any reason for you to require these tools. Why don't you answer my question and tell me why you need the tools? What would you do with them? If you think my 5,000 edit perspective, covering 6 months, is misleading, think that most times people will check your last contributions, not those done a year ago. -- ReyBrujo 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by User:Opabinia regalis

I'm not really a big fan of editor reviews. But I thought I should say something here, since I intended to support your last RfA and then it was delisted by the time I got home from work. (And I'd likely support you again.) It goes without saying that you're one of our best physics editors, and take a hard line against crankish nonsense. Which is great, but it's gotten you into a lot of entanglements (how many ArbCom cases now?) - at minimum I'd suggest waiting till the pseudoscience one settles out (I can't imagine Asmodeus' has any traction, but I don't know the whole context). More general comments:

  • You're on a website where people argue for months over a minor redesign of the sidebar. People like to discuss everything, a lot. For better or worse, people read brief and pithy but see curt and dismissive.
  • You don't suffer fools gladly (or at all). That's good; we need more admins who won't put up with foolishness. But you tend to be rather acerbic in an environment where people will bend over backwards not to offend even the most persistently obnoxious user. Most people don't know their ass from their elbow about advanced topics in physics (myself included), so when they go to review your contributions, they see you calling a fellow disputant ignorant/incompetent/a crank, and have no way of evaluating the arguments to decide whether or not it's true. It's easy enough to say 'oppose, civility issues' and move on.
  • You'll most likely be asked about NPOV and 'SPOV', whatever that means. Have an answer. Make it more than a sentence long.
  • 'Be efficient' will be read by at least a few people as 'clobber people who are in my way'. Come up with some specifics, ideally with examples from less than 6 months ago. Start by filling up CAT:CSD if you want to help empty it as an admin. I tagged speedies when I didn't have the time/inspiration to do any serious article writing.
  • Not really related to adminship, but good science minds are always great for reviewing other science articles, even if they aren't directly related to your area of expertise. Consider spending more time on peer review or FAC; it would be really useful.

Opabinia regalis 03:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer Big Bang and redshift are featured articles.
  2. 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?
    Answer In an arbitration over pseudoscience as we speak. Also involved with arbitrations regarding User:Reddi, User:Ed Poor, and other promoters of pseudoscience/fringe science. I am of the opinion that WP:NPOV#Undue wieght, WP:NPOV#Psuedoscience, and WP:FRINGE are clear that minority/pseudoscience/fringe science opinions are to be marginalized in mainstream articles while they are to be explained in their own articles with appropriate criticism from the mainstream community, skeptical organizations, or verifiable and relevant ideas that have scientific consensus.

Optional question from Dar-Ape (talk · contribs)

  1. What Administrator tasks are you interested in working on? Dar-Ape 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please see my previous failed RfAs for this info. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_ScienceApologist_6ba7.html"