Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ScienceApologist

Final(47/43/7) Ending 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) – Self Nom... I was told to augment my nomination statement. I want to be an administrator because for some of the daily grind tasks (vandalism issues and speedy deletions) that I can help with one needs administrator tools if one wants to be as efficient as possible. I want to be as efficient as possible. ScienceApologist 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. --ScienceApologist 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support, why not? Poloyoe 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support bravo! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I am rather enjoying your bold antiestablishmentarian message. You're sticking it to the accepted norms of RfA promotional groveling. Awesome! - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Many opposing users say he's "not interested". why would he go through the trouble of posting a self-nomination? Axiomm 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Yeah, why not? SushiGeek 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per Axiomm. To say someone is not interested in what they're requesting is ridiculious. Mostly Rainy 06:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, The depth of his contributions indicate a commitment beyond what was indicated in "disinterested" (short) answers to RFA questions. That being said, I think many voters would appreciate some further clarification of your reasoning behind requesting admin. Alphachimp talk 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. I've decided to support. A two-word nomination is not mentioned in my criteria, and everything else checks out. Show some enthusiasm next time!! :-) Grandmasterka 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Definitely deserves to get the mop. DarthVader 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Obviously this user was interested enough in adminship to nom themselves. Users edits seem normal, and not painfully repressed or on the other hand out of line arrogant or rude. I'd rather have 1 normal administrator than 60 annoying ones who can talk themselves up but are incredibly rude to deal with or just plain obnoxious. IMO the lack of a 600 million page essay on why they should be nominated just adds weight to their nomination request.--I'll bring the food 13:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support So let me get this straight..because this user speaks softly and carries a big stick, people are opposing his nom? WTF!!! Just because he didn't write a thesis sized nomination statement is actually a refreshing change of pace. Honestly, I think the oppose votes who stated they were opposing specifically because of the lack of a nomination speech should be discounted. I'm serious. TruthCrusader 14:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think you missed the nomination statement at the beginning when it just said "self nom". He has since then changed it. I don't think they discount good-faith votes either. — The King of Kings 16:35 July 07 '06
    This [1] was the state of the nom when I made my comment. In fact, I noticed that until Winhunter fixed it, the nom looked like this [2]. I stand by my comments below, which were made in good faith. Agent 86 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. He has shown dedication to the project through his edits. Dr Zak 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Extra support for his bullshit-free self-nomination. As a scientist one usually carries a BS detector on the person, and his is truly sensitive. Dr Zak 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Apart from his nomination statement, he would actively use admin tools, so... Why not? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Better on the inside pissing out, rather than on the outside pissing in (UK humour). Oppose, has the potential to become a good Admin, as his dedication to articles is very good, but I feel he may treat different users in different ways depending on the nature of the article. For example, from my own experience (and I disclose a potential conflict of interest here), (a) his assessment of peer-reviewed minority views often gets the same treatment one might expect of non-citable extreme minoroty views, to the point of exclusion and dismissal (rather than moderation and discription), (b) his view of "fringe" scientists as "pathological sceptics" and "woo woos" (rather than as scientists with minority views), (c) his use of third-party Web sites as sources when it suits him, and the ignoring of peer-reviewed articles when it doesn't, is a double standard, all of which I feel would may cloud his judgement in some articles.--Iantresman 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) --Iantresman 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    If you say so. :p — The King of Kings 17:07 July 07 '06
    UK humour??!! Try LBJ -- the quintessential Texan (and quite the pungent, ribald speaker).--A. B. 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support! (I'd rather read a concise nomination than a rambling self-glorifying essay. And why should eagerness be a criterion? Power corrupts; those seeking it eagerly often shouldn't get it.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 18:37Z
    Very true. DarthVader 12:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support' per Quarl. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Over 9000 edits is more than enough to qualify. FeedThePigeons 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. I am mystified by the "oppose" statements. SA is a seasoned, experienced editor with enough intelligence, reason and common sense to use the tools wisely. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I can't agree with you more, KC. Mostly Rainy 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. I thought we were dicsussing the editor, not voting on how great a nomination they filled out. I guess I have this whole RfA business all wrong though: it's just people looking at a cover sheet and making sure they have > 3000 edits, I guess. OK. Anyway, ScienceApologist has actively improved the encyclopedia and is in my experience an excellent editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support With opposition like that... SA conducted himself in a very admirable manner when improperly blocked by a former admin who was bullying him, and did not hold a grudge. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Very Strong Support And I don't always agree with SA -- but, and this is important, I've always found him to be honest, logical and willing to work with people, and, most important for me, he is quite knowledgable and raises valid points that other might not even think of. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support based on the unlikelihood of tool abuse (alright, stop snickering, that's not what I meant!). Knowledge of policy will grow, and this user is a strong editor and communicator, and will bring up for review anything he's not fully comfortable with—a quality I'd like to see more often. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, I think this user is very smart and therefore a great contributor. Sir Studieselot 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - solid editor, no evidence he would abuse the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. I assumed he was an admin all along - if I had realised he wasn't I'd have nominated him. Solid editor, hard working, familiar with policy. I have no reason to think he'd abuse admin powers. Hence, Strong Support Guettarda 05:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong support. Focussed editor, with great respect for other editors. In any case, I see no reason to believe he would abuse admin powers, and little else should matter in RfA. -- Ec5618 09:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - This user really helps building an encylopedia, that's enough for me to trust him. Mário 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support we need more admins with science background and his answer to my question below convinces me that he'll be reasonable with regard to conflicts of interest. Opabinia regalis 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Mainly per Jim, Felonious, Guettarda and Opabinia. Having worked a lot with SA, I'm confident he will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support I have seen SA in action at Intelligent Design and other creationism-vs.-evolution related articles. He has always kept his cool in arguments and is constructive in his edits. Kasreyn 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support on the basis of responses and contributions - believe will make good use of the tools--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support --HResearcher 02:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Has a strong record of worthwhile contributions, particularly in several specialist areas where a knowedgeable admin would be of great unique value to WP. Dryman 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support— Dunc|☺ 10:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per answers. — Deckiller 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support This Fire Burns.....Always 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - Capable and diligent editor with the solid common sense. We need more admins like that, self-nominated or otherwise. Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per various comments above. BryanG(talk) 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong support great user, many good edits. Polonium 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Possesses a great deal of sangfroid that most other users, and some admins, lack. —Gabbe 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Joe I 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support i have seen this editor stick at a job on tough pages. i have seen him argue his case using talk pages. I'm not worried about a brief self nom since this editor seems to value time productively editing. The more streamlined the better. I am evaluating his edits and interactions with other editors, not his ability to fill out a form. I am not worried about 5 edits per page. Wikipedia needs some speacilists, assuming that is the correct term for an editor with an average of 5 edits per page. We get used to low numbers since many here speacilise in vandalism reverts. Clearly that type of editing does result in a very low average edits per page. David D. (Talk) 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Strong Support. I really like this person's edits and stance on talk pages. Star Ghost 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Has made a significant contribution in assuring that non-scientific views are correctly so characterized. And the quality of the arguments of those who declare themselves his enemy frankly encourages support. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, (1) to negate the oppose voter who made one of the most extraordinary statements I've seen around here for a while, namely he "consistently pushes for a scientific, rather than neutral, point of view", and (2) because I believe he'd be a good admin Moriori 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Capable, diligent, etc. etc. Nonsuch 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose there's no nom brief and answers are currently quite short. Looks like a great editor but until this issue is fixed I can't support at this time. Sorry.--Andeh 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Answer 1 specifically states the user wants to help RC patrol and tackle vandalism. Yet I couldn't find any evidence of RC patrolling, and they reverted a newbie edit here[3] but failed to leave them a message. It would be risky giving admin permission to a user who has the desire to conduct tasks they have little experience on as a user. Best suited as a great editor for now.--Andeh 02:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. For someone who has been here for so long, I am quite surprised by the poorly formed and poorly reasoned nom and the weakness of the answers. Agent 86 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - user shows no real interest in adminship IMHO, otherwise we'd have a better self-nom statement -- Tawker 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Why is a long nomination statement a criteria for judgement of one's ability to be an admin? TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Though the contribution stats and experience seem right, I cannot give the mop to a user who looks uninterested (per nom statement). Maybe if ScienceApologist looked more professional, I would support. --WillMak050389 03:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose -- poor nomination. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Why? Give an example. TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose underwhelmed, unconvinced, unconfident. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    In what way? Lets see some specific reasons why.TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, nothing to convince me that the tools are necessary here. RandyWang (raves/rants) 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose loose canon, probable sockpuppet, abusive near vandalism bigotry--F.O.E. 06:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    "Sockpuppets" (alias accounts) don't make over 9000 edits. Does anyone bother to read the stats? Mostly Rainy 06:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    You might find [[4]] illustrative of the reasons why F.O.E. might consider someone called "ScienceApologist" a loose cannon. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    This vote should be dis-counted. Personal attack. TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. There is currently an RfC regarding F.O.E.'s personal attacks, among other details, which include his strong partisan opposition to ScienceApologist (SA is a confirmed rationalist and supporter of the theory of evolution; F.O.E. is a self-proclaimed enemy (or "foe") of evolution). Kasreyn 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, Bad nomination. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Why? Give me a specific reason. TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    The reason I opposed him for admin because when he nominated somebody for admin, he doesn't explain anything.*~Daniel~* ☎ 05:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    I doubt that really has any significance as to whether or not this user can carry out the consesus of the community and perform tedious tasks. — Deckiller 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Try again, when you have the experience to figure out a nomination... :) -- негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Very poor nomination. Xoloz 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Why? Lets see some examples. TruthCrusader 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    As I noted above, this was the state of the nom when I made my comment. Before Winhunter fixed it, it looked like this this. Agent 86 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Poor nomination and minimal responses to questions--Heidijane 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, he seems to be a good user, but due to the nomination statement "self nom", it does not explain anything. Answers to questions are rather short, what is the reason are you nominating yourself for? Self nom is insufficient. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Combative editor who (as one might guess from his name) consistently pushes for a scientific, rather than neutral, point of view. He's more interested in making sure articles represent his version of the truth than in describing both sides of disputes. He is intelligent enough to keep his implicit (and often very clever) personal attacks below the level that would warrant official action (" I'm pleased that ragesoss isn't so mealy-mouthed"), but the condescension shines through. He has a tendency to cause disputes (example) and resolve them more through sheer tenacity than compromise. Granted, given the kinds of articles he edits, SA is probably the more reasonable of the disputing parties most of the time, but I would not trust him to be a neutral admin.--ragesoss 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Rage, come on, dude, you know you argue virtually everything from a decidedly non-scientific, in many cases "supernatural" standpoint, rather than a neutral one. Isn't that really the point of contention here? •Jim62sch• 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per all above, weak answers. Roy A.A. 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per above, also... too little UT edit Computerjoe's talk 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Strong Oppose weak nomination and answers do not provide sufficient reason to support, and raise concerns about approach TigerShark 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to strong oppose per this. I can't even begin to comprehend how this editor could consider that creating an RFC would be an appropriate response to the oppose votes on this RfA. TigerShark 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    What I can't comprehend is this is the kind of response he got from suggesting an RFC. — The King of Kings 20:24 July 07 '06
    Perhaps I can help you there. There seems to have been a lack of consensus in recent RfAs about what people might be looking for in an admin candidate. As I understand it, each editor can make up their own criteria. An RfC could be a good opportunity for people to share their experience in this area and perhaps refine their ideas. Stephen B Streater 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    "Consensus"...? What are you talking about? People don't have to follow any consensus in their adminship criteria. Each individual user is perfectly entitled to their own criteria. I too find the question about an RFC extremely strange; I just wrote to the candidate to ask about it. As for the refining of ideas, an RFC has to be the world's worst place, bar none, for it. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
    Just because people don't have to follow consensus doesn't mean they won't benefit by understanding other people's thoughts on the subject. Stephen B Streater 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think you're missing that RFC is mainly a dispute resolution mechanism and not a general purpose discussion medium. General purpose discussion is fine but RFC isn't the right place for it. Phr (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Good point. I don't think an RfC would be beneficial any more. There are enough talk pages. Stephen B Streater 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Or perhaps he meant open one on himself, to find out what all the oppose votes are about. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Uninspirational nomination and answers, candidate doesn't seem to be actually bothered. Highway Batman! 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Taking a confrontational tone during an RfA seems really distasteful to me. Otherwise, I think this looks like a generally good user, and I will perhaps support a re-application. Themindset 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Since my inital vote, Scienceapologist asked me on my talk page for clarification. He became increasingly rude,[5] as I tried to be as open and honest as I could be [6]. His comments, though somewhat veiled in an attempt at "clarification of opinion", really just made me feel like my opinions and perceptions were irrelevant - his "everyone else is wrong" attitude does not bode well at all [7]. It will now take much more convincing for me to reconsider this user on reapplication. Themindset 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Typically, I am very pro scientist when it comes to RFA, but unfortunately I feel I have to make an exception in this case. In my opinion, SA has a tendancy to treat opinions that challenge the scientific mainstream with too great a level of disdain and deal poorly with those who bring up such opinions. His eagerness to revert and level of agression in working to enforce the scientific mainstream make me considerably uneasy. I can't help but think that this attitude I percieve in him could spill over into his administrative actions. I am sure that SA has the interests of Wikipedia at heart, and on scientific issues he is probably correct far more often than not, but if someone is going to spend much of their time working on controversial issues, then I'd like to see a more complete set of conflict resolution skills in admin candidates. Dragons flight 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Fails my criteria for (1) Decent spelling/grammar, (2) Poor answers to RfA questions, and (3) Does not understand what an admin really does —Mets501 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Quite frankly, why is decent spelling and grammar an issue here? It's good for a proessional edge, but Adminship isn't FAC. — Deckiller 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've never noticed any egregious errors on SA's part, typos yes, but I can't think of one of us who is not guilty of a typo or two hundred. BYW: Grammar note, The virgule means "or" although the intent seems to have been "and" -- might want to change that. •Jim62sch• 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Confrontational tone in his RFA does not bode well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Tawker. --Shizane 07:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Personal reasons, but among them is his calling of several people "POV pushers" which I don't believe comes across in a very good light. I'm sorry. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Unless of course it's true, eh? •Jim62sch• 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but of course, there are always other ways of getting a message across in a civil, productive manner. I'd suggest dodging the word "pusher" unless your dealing with just pure vandalism. Aaрон Кинни (t) 10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    For vandalism one would use the word "vandal". For someone advocating, aka pushing, a POV, POV-pusher seems quite appropriate. One can take civility and "good faith" only so far -- neither is a suicide pact condemning one to a life of ignorance in exchange for the bliss of the "community" •Jim62sch• 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per above, the I don't know much about the content dispute stuff; its mainly the answers to the questions that bother me.Voice-of-All 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - not this time, although I think he is a valuable editor. He's just a little too set in his ways for me to be confident that he won't use the tools to his own (science's) advantage. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not to be intrusive, but could you clarify a bit? I fail to see how editing "to science's advantage" is a bad thing in an encyclopedia that aims to be factual. Opabinia regalis 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not to intrude on your non-obtrusiveness, but I suspect it's because science excises the glories of mystery and supernatural awe from the picture of the universe and relegates them to the trash-heap of ancient superstition. •Jim62sch• 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not intrusive at all. We're not editing from a SPOV, we're supposed to edit from a neutral point of view. Sometimes that means including things you don't personally agree with, or believe, or think are worthy of inclusion. I have concerns that he may use the administrative tools to back himself or others up in discussions which should be purely about editor consensus. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. A poor example of an RfA does not inspire confidence. Also TruthCrusader's behavior has stained this RfA for me. Advice for ScienceApologist: if you go up for RfA again and someone starts badgering your oppose votes, you might consider a polite request to that user. -lethe talk + 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Hegemonic POV-pusher. Wrote on Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology that the statement, "Quasi-steady state proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers,' condensing out of iron ejected from supernovae, to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation," was "preposterously in violation of NPOV," and that "Since such things have never been observed, we need to describe what the proposal actually is (that is, an attempt to cover the backside of people who are pathologically skeptical of the Big Bang." [sic] LossIsNotMore 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose I find ScienceApologist's conduct on the RfA talk page quite unsettling. The comments about explaining votes and the 75% threshold, as well as the edits to (and associated statements about) the front matter to reflect these comments give me a sense the (s)he is complaining just because the RfA isn't going as well as planned. There's nothing wrong with commenting on the process, but the degree to which it has been done does not sit well with me; I fear this kind of attitude could lead to wheel-warring. Perhaps I'd support you in October. joturner 01:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. No. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support: get someone else to nominate you next time. Not everyone has come across you before, and your nomination lacks content. Stephen B Streater 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose: changed from support. I agree the RfA process could be improved, but your own RfA is not the place to take on this job. Ability to relate to difficult users is an important part of being an Admin, so lack of resolution with various editors during this discussion is a problem. If you don't understand why people are opposing you, perhaps you are not ready for Admin. Finally, WP is a community, and accountability is important for good performance, so get someone else to nominate you next time, preferably someone who opposed you this time. Stephen B Streater 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. I just realised that this editor has been actively writing the rules at the top of this page during his RfA. Such is simply not appropriate and cannot bode well for editing policy whilst trying to implement it. -Splash - tk 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Joturner has done the best job so far at describing why I'm opposing, though also . It's rather hard for me to pin down specific diffs, but the general impression I'm getting is that I'm not ready to trust ScienceApologist with adminship yet, due to concerns over POV pushing, slightly too argumentative style (sorry, very hard to make that more specific, I guess it's more of an instinct thing), and sometimes being less than perfectly civil. Petros471 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. Agree with points raised by Joturner and Splash. I just don't trust ScienceApologist's judgement right now. Aren't I Obscure? 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Editing criteria in front matter in the midst of your own RfA does not inspire confidence that tools will be used disinterestedly. Marskell 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose, 5+ edits per distinct page is scary. — Jul. 11, '06 [18:28] <freak|talk>
    Comment: I'm aiming for six :-) Once you add a topic to your watchlist, vandalism reverts soon add up. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, and once you fall in love with a topic, all edits not by you become vandalism. That's what I'm worried about. — Jul. 11, '06 [23:59] <freak|talk>
  38. Oppose You dont need to be an admin, there are some great tools for vandalism etc. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. Still not clear on what specifically admin tasks will be fulfilled. RfC comments are highly worrisome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose unfortunately. For some of the reasons already cited (though I was AGF in the hope he may have learned from any errors). But mostly for the way he had jsut handled the last question below. This is not the way I would expect a sysop to conduct themselves, and as pointed out not all socks are abusive. - Glen 01:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, due to trying to change the rules of RFA whilst up for RFA himself. A shame, because 'I want to be as efficient as possible' is the single best reason I have ever seen for wanting to be an admin, and I really wanted to support because of it. I want to be as efficient as possible, too. Proto::type 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Due to the reasons expressed above concerning conduct during this RfA, and concerns regarding answers to questions and in prior conduct on Wikipeida. --Wisden17 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per Wisden17. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral until a better nomination statement is given than "self nom". I will support if it's fixed. Alert me if it's been corrected. — The King of Kings 02:23 July 07 '06
    Neutral Well, I like the fact he came back and changed his nom from "self nom" to an actual statement, but I can't say I'm impressed with the opposition's statements as solid as the are. If the evidence from the opposes above are legit, then he might have trouble in the areas of WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. — The King of Kings 16:35 July 07 '06
    In the arbitration case that he was involved in (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2) his conduct was exemplary. Dr Zak 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    How this is relevant I fail to see, but I think I get you're point. It's just some of the comments made under oppose were a little uneasy is all. — The King of Kings 17:55 July 07 '06
  2. Neutral. I've come across this user before, but I will refrain from expressing an opinion because I don't have anything to work off! I would like to see an improved nomination. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian {T C @} 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I've encoutered Scientist before, and was impressed. However, I am slightly concerned per civility concerns. Yanksox 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. You haven't given very strong answers to the questions.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, changed from Oppose per Joturner, and the talk page comment about being bitten, with a link to WP:BITE. WP:BITE is about newbies - as long as ScienceApologist thinks he is a newbie, he should not be applying to be an administrator., as he has pointed out that WP:BITE does actually contain an admin section.AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - good editor, wikipedia needs more science people, but poorly-thought-out answers and unwise attempt to debate the rules of RfA during his own RfA (not that I don't agree the process can be improved, just think this was poor timing). --Guinnog 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username ScienceApologist
Total edits 9358
Distinct pages edited 1670
Average edits/page 5.604
First edit 17:36, 15 September 2004
 
(main) 4811
Talk 3171
User 43
User talk 323
Image 3
Template 79
Template talk 53
Category 13
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 759
Wikipedia talk 96
Portal 6


  • Support. NoPuzzleStranger 3:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 64.12.116.73 (talk • contribs)
    I have deleted this support as this user was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Please inform me if this is out of line. --WillMak050389 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sock users usually get their vote deleted, not just striked. Fair enough though.--Andeh 03:
    A vote is a vote and it should count. NoPuzzleStranger 3:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 205.188.117.13 (talk • contribs)
    The above vote and comment were made by an unregistered user. I marked them accordingly and moved them here from the "support" section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Was this vote made by NoPuzzleStranger or by an anon and signed as NoPuzzleStranger? --Merovingian {T C @} 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    User:NoPuzzleStranger is indefinitely blocked. The vote was made by the anonymous user whose IP address I appended to the vote. In this edit, he forged the support vote and removed an opposing vote. Using an different IP address (but presumably the same user), he later forged another support vote as User:Babylon5 and removed two opposing votes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's just bizarre. --Merovingian {T C @} 09:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Requiring candidates to "study" previous RFAs only encourages gaming the system. Short answers != poor answers: a 1-sentence "I brought X to featured status" is more impressive than a 3-paragraph essay explaining lack of featured article contributions. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 22:44Z
    • Strongly agree with Quarl about short answers, though not on standards re: FA's. I'm willing to vote for an RfA of a person who has never brought any article to FA; many minor constructive contributions are just as good as a few major ones, in my opinion. But yeah, definitely, we should not be encouraging gaming of RfA by setting up some sort of meta-standard of how questions should be answered and how nominations should be phrased. Let's not ritualize this, OK? Kasreyn 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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:I expect to help with recent change patrol and vandalism fighting. I probably also will look to speedy deletions which seem to be a never-ending backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:I'm pleased with the Big Bang article which I have helped reach a featured status.
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 have been in conflicts with User:Ungtss, User:Iantresman, User:Ed Poor, User:Reddi,User:Elerner, and others. My idea for dealing with these conflicts is to keep cool, stay as honest as I can, and explain what I can. Some editors (e.g. User:Flying Jazz) haven't been happy with the way I discuss manners, but I try my best. I'm pretty proud of a recent handling of a dispute with an anon on Buddhism and science and another on Gordon Pask.

Optional question from Opabinia regalis:

As a fellow science person, I like the idea of more admins with a background in the sciences. However, you say here that you don't plan on using admin powers on science articles. Is that limited to articles you've contributed to or subjects you've had conflicts about? What would you do if someone was vandalizing, blatantly POV pushing, or otherwise acting like an idiot on a science-related page?
To avoid conflicts of interest, if I've been involved directly in a controversy or have ever editted the article I wouldn't use admin tools. However, if the subject was one I hadn't contributed to and someone asked for help (for example page protection to stop edit warring) I would help but would maintain distance from the discussions. Vandalism is usually easily addressed by reversion, communication, and, if necessary, short blocks. "Blatant POV pushing" and "acting like an idiot" is often difficult to determine in the context of any article on Wikipedia let alone science articles. While I have my opinion on what qualifies, I would never use admin tools to enforce this opinion since I know reasonable editors may disagree. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional question from Deckiller:

Do you enjoy (or are willing to perform) tedious tasks without a directly tangible incentive? Why or why not? Thanks!
As an educator I am alternatively delighted and dismayed by how many of my students use Wikipedia as a first stop on their research treks. Performing tedious tasks to make Wikipedia a better resource for them is definitely a motivating incentive for me. --ScienceApologist 08:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from LossIsNotMore:

I agree with Iantresman's striken complaints:
(a) his assessment of peer-reviewed minority views often gets the same treatment one might expect of non-citable extreme minoroty views, to the point of exclusion and dismissal (rather than moderation and discription), (b) his view of "fringe" scientists as "pathological sceptics" and "woo woos" (rather than as scientists with minority views), (c) his use of third-party Web sites as sources when it suits him, and the ignoring of peer-reviewed articles when it doesn't, is a double standard, all of which I feel would may cloud his judgement in some articles
My questions are: (1) do you agree that you have had a problem with these issues? And, if so (2) how are you going to modify your behavior to keep these problems from recurring? LossIsNotMore 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you a sockpuppet of User:Nrcprm2026? --ScienceApologist 22:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Nrcprm2026 hasn't edited for months, so whether I am the same person or not has no bearing on this RfA. Unless you believe that Iantresman is also a sockpuppet, I hope you will address the questions. LossIsNotMore 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So you are a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026, then? ---ScienceApologist 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am a sockpuppet; so what? Do your answers depend on whether LossIsNotMore is a sockpuppet? Part of being an admin is being able to keep cool when confronted with sockpuppetry, and being able to tell legitimate sockpuppetry from vote-stacking or block-evading abuse. You might ask yourself about how your response to this question appears to voters: there have only been opposition votes since you asked LossIsNotMore about his status instead of answering his questions. --Stunned06 04:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It is generally not a good idea to advertise oneself as a sockpuppet as that can create the appearance of one gaming the system. I suggest you reconsider your advocacy here. --ScienceApologist 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name" -- Nrcprm2026 hasn't edited for months, so "multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block" aren't being used, unless you think I'm also Iantresman or Stunned06. Sockpuppetry isn't always "gaming the system" because there are several WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. So, are you going to answer the questions? LossIsNotMore 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Just so we're on the same page, which one of those legitimate uses are you claiming? --ScienceApologist 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Keeping heated issues in one small area, to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere" -- okay? LossIsNotMore 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Then might I suggest that this account may not have accomplished the purpose you intended. It may be prudent to use the User:Nrcprm2026 account for the purposes of expounding upon your conflicts with me and your contentious editting of qss and uranium-related articles. As it is, you currently are the owner of two different accounts that edit the same articles and engage in the same conflicts. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Again, Nrcprm2026 has not edited for months. I have not used this account to edit any QSS articles. So, your verb tense and facts are wrong at least. Now, are you going to address the questions, or are you going to continue to evade them? LossIsNotMore 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Why did you just create a third sockpuppet? What is the rationale for doing this? --ScienceApologist 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was editing from a public terminal at FedExKinko's. Ever planning to get around to the questions? I've answered all of yours, and you've answered none of mine. LossIsNotMore 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your explanation. Why does your presence at the public terminal require you not to use your normal account. And if there was such a problem, why couldn't you just wait a few hours? JoshuaZ 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you just log in with your own user name? Are you saying you created a user name to post from kinko's or are you saying you used someone elses account? If the former, it must have taken you more time to create a new user name than log in with your old one. This evassive answer re: the third sock puppet, raises a lot of red flags in my mind. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note for admin tabulating votes

Please do not fail to note that one of the oppose votes (currently, #9) which is currently counted, has been argued by multiple editors, including myself, to have been motivated by partisan opposition. These multiple editors argue that the vote should therefore be discounted. Of course, it's up to you in the end. Kasreyn 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... Although it ain't gonna matter here. Grandmasterka 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno... looks like it might be close. Kasreyn 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You must be under the impression that RfA is a straight vote, it is not. Generally requires around 75% support. Themindset 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict]No, the level of support for promotion is 75-80%. Sadly, right now he'd need another 80 support votes (with no more oppose votes) to have any shot. Guettarda 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ohh... I see. Well, shoot. Kasreyn 23:33, 13 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_ScienceApologist_6b38.html"