Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist2

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

[edit] ScienceApologist

Final (6/16/10) Ended 19:16:00 27 September 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) nominated by User:Sdedeo. Wikipedia aspires, in part, to be a source of reliable information on scientific subjects, and ScienceApologist's work on topics in the physical sciences has been absolutely invaluable to that end. In particular, as those with a physics background know, Wikipedia is a magnet for WackyPhysics(tm) -- in fact, WP:NOR was created precisely because of the massive influx of pseudophysics early on in Wikipedia's history; see, e.g., [1]. Providing ScienceApologist with the administrative tools necessary to keep our physics articles legitimate, mainstream and weasel-free would be a great boon to our project.

I'll address three issues right off the bat. ScienceApologist is, as the weasel words go, "controversial for some" -- in particular, for a number of editors who attempt to blur the boundaries between mainstream and fringe science. Dealing with these folks (as I know) is not easy and the amount of bile that an editor receives on getting involved with them compares to levels experienced in articles on abortion -- hence ScienceApologist has been involved in numerous conflicts. If I believed that any of these showed him in a negative light I would not nominate him now.

Secondly, there is a recent (and only) block for controversy surrounding the Eric Lerner page; this block was undone by another admin, and the original blocker apologized for an improper block.

Finally, ScienceApologist has already gone through a self-nom RfA which failed; I'm aware of the "oppose" votes, which I respect, and I've taken them into consideration in decidng to renominate him. I believe the arguments made against his nomination are outweighed by the immense value that he can contribute to the project as an admin. The main objection made against ScienceApologist was that it seemed "he didn't want it enough"; I reply: the government is best that governs least. I hope that folks can appriciate the value that ScienceApologist could bring by deeper involvement in the project, and support his nomination. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is with great honor and humility that I accept this nomination, especially considering who offered it: one of the most knowledgeable and capable editors we have here. --ScienceApologist 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn due to community pile-on. This was a waste of time. Sigh. --ScienceApologist 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to ScienceApologist for bad timing, and to folks in general for stirring up trouble. I am taking an extended break from the project in part response to this vote. Sdedeo (tips) 18:00, 27 September 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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

I am hoping to be able to use the admin tools to be as efficient as possible with my volunteer work here at Wikipedia. I stress that I have no intention of abusing the privileges this offers and I look forward to working with other administrators monitoring incidents (especially 3RR noticeboard which is backlogged way too often) and generally helping to improve the quality of Wikipedia. In particular, I hope to encourage people interested in editting articles about science or pseudoscience to practice good research skills and edit accordingly. See responses to points 4 and 5 below for more.--ScienceApologist 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Big Bang is a featured article. Redshift will be one very soon (as soon as we figure out how to cite the sky being blue -- little bit of humor there). --ScienceApologist 00:34, 27 September 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?

My main conflicts continue to be:

• With certain editors wanting to promote non-standard cosmologies in defiance of verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Interestingly, there has been some exciting developments on the main article surrounding this dispute as consensus has been reached for a rewrite of the article that is currently ongoing. I am very proud of my work in this area, we have effectively marginalized the marginal research and emphasized the research that is emphasized in the field in the appropriate articles. Part of the beauty of "big tent" Wikipedia is that we can have articles on science and pseudoscience. For example, the Big Bang article was once dominated by unduly weighted critiques and now it explains the theory according to the consensus in the field. Every day we get closer to the NPOV ideal in articles about mainstream and "against the mainstream" opinions.
• With certain editors wanting to promote creationism. This editting dispute has died down now that many of the most POV-pushing of the creationists have moved on to projects where verifiability and reliability are covered by a different set of idealizations. We still managed to keep creationists here at Wikipedia anyway, and I think that is a testament to our commitment to neutrality despite the sometimes conflicts that come up with verifiability. Currently, the lingering creationist disputes are being hammered out in a RfArb with Ed Poor.
• With editors in other pseudoscience and fringe science areas. I keep an eye on astrology, dianetics, Gordon Pask, and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. These all develop problems from time to time.

I don't anticipate my admin tools being used very much in edit disputes (as this would represent a conflict of interest), but since there are plenty of fly-by-night vandals and people who want to include their own original research in Wikipedia articles, I'm sure that there will be use for admin tools in controversial articles.

A note on my recent block: I am a big proponent of the BRD cycle which has been very effective in handling the editting concerns on the controversial articles I frequent. Unfortunately, this recently got me into trouble when an admin blocked me for using this technique to try to effect consensus regarding Eric Lerner. Briefly, the subject of the article was editting article which I and others pointed out was subject to autobiography guidelines. I was attempting to engage in working out a consensus (I had edits that were not discussed earlier) when another user (Iantresman) decided that my insinuations regarding the subject of the article (that he was basically not a mainstream scientist with regards to cosmology/astronomy) were a form of "personal attack". While the responding administrator disagreed with Ian's complaint, she decided to pen a rather sharp rebuke on my talkpage. I responded on her talkpage that she didn't adequately research the matter and that, specifically, there were problems with WP:AUTO. After going through the revert part of the cycle, the administrator decided I was edit warring and blocked me. I was unblocked by another administrator who cautioned that administrators should not act hastily. There was a rather extensive discussion and I think we came to the conclusion that while the administrator felt justified in her block, there were outstanding circumstances that conflicted with this conclusion. She did not object when I was unblocked and since then I have had no problems with this administrator and I hold no ill-will at all, though I still disagree with how she handled the case, and I certainly would have handled it differently as an outside admin. That's part of the joy of dealing with different opinions here at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from Wknight94

4.You say, "I don't anticipate my admin tools being used very much in edit disputes". Give an example when you would use admin tools in an edit dispute.

A:Here's a good example of an administrator doing something that I would do. --ScienceApologist 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that was neither an example of admin tools nor an edit dispute (reverting vandalism doesn't count as an edit dispute). Do you have another example? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider rollback an admin tool? Okay. I consider persistent vandalism to be effectively an edit dispute. However, if you want a different example I'll provide one. --ScienceApologist 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Under what circumstances would you conside blocking an established user?

A:I would consider blocking an established user (list is not exhaustive, but illustrative):

1) to enforce "higher authority" fiats (from arbcom for example).

2) 3RR is violated, though one must be careful to treat every user who violated the rule in the course of an edit disagreement equally AND that all users were warned that such action could result in a block.

3) if WP:NPA was eggregiously and unequivocally violated (for example, after being warned, a user vandalizes another user's talkpage repeatedly with personal attacks due to some petty vendetta)

4) for violations of [Wikipedia:No legal threats]], but I would only block if the user had made threats directly (such as "I'm going to sue you for libel, User:X").

I would never block if I was a party to any related dispute, however (so, for example, I had never been directly involved with editting the article). I'd get help from an uninvolved admin.

Question from Hoary

6. Above, you say "there are plenty of fly-by-night vandals". Certainly reversion of vandalism is tedious, and less tedious with the rollback button (whose use is supposed to be limited to reversion of simple vandalism and not that of perhaps well-intended edits, no matter how boneheaded they may seem). Can you provide half a dozen diffs where you've reverted vandalism (whether fly-by-night or recidivist, whether physics-related or otherwise) and would have used the roll-back button if available? If looking for these is too tiresome (which I'd understand, as I hate looking through my own list of contributions especially when in search of past disagreeable chores), please give one or two other examples of where/how else you would have used the administrative button, mop and bucket, or truncheon. Hoary 09:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that this is way too time consuming for me to relish doing. Honestly, I currently avoid persistent vandals now unless they are finding their way deep into the encyclopedia. Much of the vandalism can be stopped by rollback and warning. From time to time we get truculent editors who revel in vandalizing, repeatedly. The place all varieties seem to end up is at Big Bang. Rollback is used there on almost a daily basis accompanied by test warnings or harsher warnings of the anons or new users. My technique has been to give them, on their talkpage, a {{subst:welcome}} tag and then a {{test}} tag (or its equivalent prose) followed by a vandalism warning if it happens at a timestamp after I placed that prose on their talkpage. If vandalism happens a third time, as a user I'm stuck with my bark being louder than my bite because it is a pain in the rear to report vandalism on the vandal noticeboard, get it responded to in due course, and have the issue dealt with in a timely fashion. It's nigh-on impossible from the non-admin perspective to get such a user blocked. That's when I would, as an admin, block the offender for a few hours to see if that would help them "see the light". If they return later, I would follow the next steps in WP:BLOCK outlined. I'm sorry I'm not providing examples but its because admin powers are not needed except for very unruly users which come around less often than the fly-by-night vandal variety. They do show up, though, and as I like to be efficient, I'd like the ability to be able to thwart them at all levels (not just the first few). --ScienceApologist 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

As the person who initiated the complaint against ScienceApologist [2], I feel we should be accurate in describing the block which generated much discussion [3]. Could you post the diffs showing that the original blocker (a) apologized (b) considered it was "an improper block." --Iantresman 00:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage. This is not the place to debate your conflict; please take later discussion to my talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom. Michael 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, clearly a valuable contributor.- gadfium 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, physics is a pretty tough topic, and I'm pretty confident ScienceApologist will come out to be a leader. bibliomaniac15 01:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. I find the issue of the GA matter less than compelling a problem. While he could have handled it better, the citation matter and the way 2b was handled was at best undiplomatic, excercised little warning and seems to have stressed many users. JoshuaZ 05:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support as respresenting a critical view which would benefit from more authority here. Still has too rigid an expectation of other editors though, which can lead to antagonism. Stephen B Streater 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, even as the recent trouble will make the RfA fail for sure. Among other things, SA is just defending the pseudoscience clause of WP:NPOV, this automatically comes with decent set of enemies. Note that for example this RFAr clearly supports his stance. He's a supporter of relativity and an opponent of relativism, and that's fine with me and good for the project. --Pjacobi 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The candidate's assumptions of bad faith and attempts to bludgeon editors with pastel boxes are hardly an appropriate sort of behavior; admins "must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others," after all. Kirill Lokshin 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   This is a complete mischaracterization of the dispute over WP:GOOD and WP:CITE. The first difference is not an assumption of bad faith at all. It is a statement of fact that the user in question was accusing articles of failing criteria that they, in fact, did not fail. If this had been a limited issue, it wouldn't have been a big deal, but this user was effectively tagging articles by counting the number of inline citations and, upon finding them unsatisfactory to her personal tastes, declared them on the talkpages to be failing a criterion many were actually not failing. There were a large number of other users who were complaining about this (especially editors of science articles) and I wanted to be as crystal as possible with my explanation of the magnitude of this problem. The user didn't like "pastel bludgeon"s either. That's fine, I removed the thing at the user's request, but I was only using this because I am of the opinion that this kind of practice really is bad for Wikipedia. It's what sends the best expert science editors packing. See Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Physics for more discussion about this problem. --ScienceApologist 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see it as a mischaracterization at all. The user was tagging articles under the auspices of a WikiProject, and was just "doing the job". I've reviewed the articles you disagree over, and they are seriously lacking inline citations. You and certain topics are not exempt from Wiki policies, and the question is not the GA WikiProject work, but your uncivil response to an editor who was just trying to help. There seems to be an underlying (and arrogant) assumption here that certain editors and topics are exempt from WP:V: they're not. And the notification was only that the articles would be reviewed: if they could stand up to the scrutiny of proper referencing, there would be no problem. But the articles you have cited elsewhere as being properly cited are not, and lack of citations is an open invitation for POV and OR. And lest you claim "ignorance" as you have of other editors, this household is comprised of both mathmeticians and physicists; the arguments for exemption from WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE aren't holding over here. Even if the arguments did hold, they are no excuse for being uncivil to an editor who was just "doing the job" of a WikiProject. Sandy 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   No one is exempt from WP:V and it is insulting that you are insinuating that this is my position. In fact, science and math wikipedia articles are some of the better articles we have because the editors of the articles are so committed to WP:V. The problem is demanding inline citations for elementary facts. It is not true to claim that the user was just "doing the job" of a Wikiproject, rather the user was promoting a personal viewpoint regarding a criterion that certain articles were no longer WP:GOOD even when they fulfilled the letter of the criterion. It's her attempt to impose an interpretation of the spirit of this criterion with her own gradiose ideas about when citations are required that is the problem. That's what the warning was for and it was well-justified. She has now basically spammed Special relativity and Hubble's law with fact tags thumbing her nose at the editors of these pages with what looks like ignorant skepticism of basic facts. --ScienceApologist 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   The two articles that seemed to have troubled SA the most was Hubble's law and Special Relativity. In doing my overview of the articles, I saw the substantial number of important claims made that didn't have a cite so I left the notice of the pending GA review (of all articles not just these) and my concerns that the article was under-referenced. SA seemed troubled that I didn't specify each and every little thing at that point, but my notice was general notice to encourage the editors to review their article before a GA review came. In doing a more thorough citation review, I tagged 24 items in the Hubble article and 43 in Special Relativity that I, as a layperson, would like to see references for the sake of WP:V and to alleviate WP:OR concerns. (especially with the first person writing tone in Special relativity). These were items that I felt were important claims in the article which has particular relevance in understanding the context of a paragraph or section-referencing overthrows and conflicts of theories, outcomes of experiences and experiments, impact on the field, historical assumptions, vague weasel wordish “Some have said” (who?) and “this was thought to” (by whom?) type phrases, etc. Some of the "experts" may feels these are givens and shouldn't need cite. That is an editorial difference and there are many pages were that can be discussed. But asking for cites is not grounds for bad faith assumptions and being accused of "Hurting Wikipedia". Agne 14:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   You are pretending that you are acting under the aegis of community consensus, but in reality you are making up standards as you go. You didn't just say that you were concerned that the article was "under-referenced", you stated unequivocally that the article did not comply with the new criterion for WP:GA which has been shown to be false. You were making up policy and Wikilawyering to the detriment of this community. I was right to warn you that you were on the road to harming Wikipedia as your current actions are causing many headaches for science editors. --ScienceApologist 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   You made a request for percision in what exactly I meant by under-reference and I made a good faith attempt to respond. I tagged the items that, as a layperson, I felt were in dire need of sourcing for verification and to alleviate OR concerns (which was very startling with the first person tone of Special Relativity). I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia's readership will be limited to those with degrees in the sciences (BAs do exist!) and asking that readership to just go with it as established fact is as unfair as me asking you to take everything in J. R. R. Tolkien as established facts without providing solid sourcing to SHOW that it can verified and to SHOW that these items are considered established fact. You can disregard my status as a layperson but it is rather unfair to ask for me to be precise in what I felt was under-reference and attack me for answering your request. I apologize for the "headaches" to the science editors, but what about the readers? Agne 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   This is a bit of a Sisyphean task, but I'll try to explain to you the problem: you yourself aren't reading the article from the perspective of a reader. You are reading it from the perspective of someone who has decided that all articles must conform to some uniform subjective standard you yourself invented and haven't been at all clear about in your actions. If you had come to Talk:Special relativity and had asked, "Hey, why is the article written in a "first person style?", as you put it, we could have had a discussion on the matter. If you wanted to ask, "Hey, why isn't this particular fact cited?" we could have discussed the matter. Instead you post a stock paragraph that is inaccurate (something you have yet to admit) and proceed to basically vandalize pages with dozens of {{fact}} tags without even bothering to explain yourself on the talkpages. There is no attempt to be an engaged reviewer or an editor, you're just interested in tallying some invented idealized checklist for your review, a checklist that most editors (who are, frankly, also readers) of the subjects you are criticizing agree is misguided and ignorant at best and unneccessarily hostile at worst. You seem to think that your good faith will be your saving grace, but when your good faith efforts are explicitly explained to you to be harmful to the project, that's when you need to move beyond good faith and start inquiring about what the implications are of your actions vis-a-vis the health of this project. --ScienceApologist 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. As a strong believer in scientific accuracy, I am very concerned about ScienceApolist's recent campaign against inline citations in Good Articles which, if anything, are typically undercited. He has taken his argument against citations in Good Articles so many different places (Wikipedia talk:Good articles[4], WP:ANI, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles[5] at least), that it is hard for me to believe he will upheld policies that are in the best interest of Wiki. I am particularly concerned that he has targeted another editor who appears to be attempting to uphold policies, so it's not clear that he is assuming good faith.[6] I also am concerned with the tone in his approach to the matter of inline citations of good articles. We need better science on Wiki: that means the highest quality citations from the most reliable sources. Sandy 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   I believe this is a real misrepresentation of ScienceApologist's position on citation; here is what he says:

   I have no problems with in-line citations. I love them. Sometimes they are very useful. Good editors use them to comply with WP:V and WP:RS. However, there lately have been some editors that seem to have replaced careful consideration of content and style with a new criterion for evaluation: a simple binary operator that registers if there isn't enough in-line citations according to some arbitrary rule they invented.

   This seems to be the substance of the debate from his perspective; to claim ScienceApologist is undermining scientific accuracy is improper. Sdedeo (tips) 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   "Sometimes they are very useful?" "Arbitrary rule?" Any editor can request a citation for any text in Wiki. I suggest that the preponderance of his responses across many pages show a potential disregard for WP:V and WP:OR and WP:CITE. The discussion here suggests that he does not support the need for sourcing of scientific (or perhaps other) articles, and has a confrontational approach to other editors, who appear to be trying to uphold basic policies. This contradicts your presentation (above) of him as someone who has been in conflicts because he supports rigor in science - something sorely needed on Wiki, and which is more likely to happen with better sourcing, not worse: it appears that the conflicts may have other origins. Good articles are often undercited: it would seem to wise to support work to improve them, rather than "bludgeon" someone seeking better sourcing of articles. Sandy 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Let me address your suggestions, and then let the matter drop (feel free to continue the discussion with me on my talk page.) I have seen nothing to suggest that ScienceApologist has introduced unverifiable information into articles, nor that he has ever produced original research (quite the contrary), nor that he has deleted citations, nor that he has not provided them when they are necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Very strong oppose. I myself was going to bring up the links Kirill did. I can not accept that from a potential admin. – Chacor 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose doens't appear to be familiar with admin tasks in addition to other issues already raised.--Peta 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose The manor that he reacted with regards to learning about the GA policies was not consistent with what should be expected of by an admin. He didn't criticize the change in guidelines, which other editors did, he went after the user (Agne) who informed him. He may be an excellent editor, but that does not mean that he would make an excellent admin. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Note that the user didn't simply inform of a change in guidelines, the user falsely stated as fact that certain articles were in non-compliance with guidelines when they actually were. --ScienceApologist 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose As the editor who was targeted and "bludgeon", I will officially oppose ScienceApologist's RfA at this time. However, I will adjoin that with the opinion that SA is a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia project with a number of tremendous, quality contributions in science related articles. If this RfA had come 6 months or so down the line, despite my previous interaction with him, I would be open to supporting his RfA. The hope would be then that the benefits of time, reflaction and personal growth would have had a tempering effects on certain behaviors that unfortunately take away from all the good that he has done. As it is, the behavior of a single admin reflects (either positively or negatively) on the reputation and integrity of all Admins and unfortunately the behavior that SA demonstrated mere hours before this RfA was posted is incompatible with the expectations of an Admin. To go as far as to place a warning template onto a user page of an established editor, who was notifying articles of recent changes to the GA criteria and encouraging editors to review the guidelines and overall citation concerns, and accuse them of harming Wikipedia smacks right up against WP:AGF and is counterproductive to creating a quality encyclopedia where collaboration and civility in disagreement is essential. His actions within the last 24 hours demonstrates an impulsive and rash behavior that is currently not fitting for adminship. Agne 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   I stand by my criticism of your actions and I am not alone in this sentiment. I do think the way you went about "informing" has damaged Wikipedia since it wasn't a simple notice about changing criterion but was an inaccurate and uninformed evaluation of articles by a project that is supposed to be about approximating an accurate and informed evaluation of articles. --ScienceApologist 13:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose - The math on this RfA does not work out for me, slightly suspicious.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Too combatative, and i'm not sure why s/he needs admin tools. glad that they are here as an editor, but i have to say no to sysopping. sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heah (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2006 UTC.
9. Oppose, editor is too "violent", bludgent another user with pastel boxes, does not really need admin tools after all. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Very strong oppose. Not only does it seem as though the admin tools will be redundant in this case, the civility issues raised are a very serious concern. No. Moreschi 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, look at me!... um, I mean per Kirill. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. While I have certain sympathies for his attempts to remove crank from the articles, and appreciate the efforts he invests there, I'm concerned with the means he uses to achieve that. I'm not sure if he could be trusted to use admin tools to get an advantage in those disputes. Duja 10:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Candidate is tempramentally unsuited to have access to the admin tools. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too much potential drama would come. I may be wrong, but it seems he'd use the tools only to his advantage. People Powered 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above reasons. The civility issues raised is a concern for me as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose. This candidate is an excellent editor, but I am not certain he would make an excellent admin. Looking at this under the core criteria of need and trust, I am doubtful on both counts. Despite the expansion of explanation, I am still uncertain as to why this nominee needs the tools or why he wants them. It's too vaguely spelled out, so I'm not entirely convinced. As for trust, I think that there has been enough stated above to cause some hesitation as to whether or not the tools will be properly used. I may support down the road, but am too reluctant to do so at this point in time. Agent 86 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Very little information is given about what chores user will do as an admin--most of his answer to question number one does not indicate a need for admin tools. -- Merope ^Talk 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral The answer to question #1 does not adequately address anticipated proper implementation of admin tools if said tools were granted, and even seems like an attempt to sidestep/evade the question. Your tone within this RfA (as noted in your response to questions #3 and #4) gives me not a sense of genuine surprise and/or determination to act civil, but a feeling of feigned incredulity and condescension, which are bad traits of an admin. Coupled with the distressing diffs provided above, I cannot support the nom at this time, but I do not believe that they are grounds for a well-supported oppose vote. --physicq210 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral – sounds like a great editor, but I can't see what you will need admin tools for; your answers do not indicate a strong need for them. Civility issues, as brought up by Kirill, will count against you. All the same, best of luck with your editing, you're doing excellent work with physics articles. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 03:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Answer to question 1 doesn't reveal a requirement for admin tools for this user at this time. (aeropagitica) 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   ScienceApologist has indicated that he intends to use admin tools to do a number of tasks. However, the neutral votes here seem to suggest that people believe that only admins who expect to use them a great deal should be nominated, and this seems an unfortunate choice. You do not have to be a zealous user of admin tools to be a very valuable one. Sdedeo (tips) 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Comment – IMHO if he will not use admin tools particularly frequently, he can ask one of over 1000 admins to do admin-like tasks for him. But that's just me. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   And if I see a mistake in an article, I can ask one of the millions of wikipedia editors to correct it for me! If I didn't think he would be a valuable admin, I wouldn't have nominated him. Sdedeo (tips) 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   I respect that. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 07:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral - Too many concerns. Maybe i'll support in a future request. -- Szvest 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
7. Neutral, please expand on Q1, you want to resolve incidents such as?..--Andeh 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral simply too many concerns over handling to resolve disputes.-- danntm ^T _C 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral This user easily does more than any other in dealing with editors trying to introduce pseudoscience in articles, and still finds time to make countless other improvements. He is one of the hardest working, most tireless editors on Wikipedia, and I frankly don't know how he does it. However, because of this, he is sometimes something of a lightning-rod for conflicts. I would vote support if I saw either a convincing case for needing the admin tools, or if he were a stronger mediator in conflicts. As it is now, it seems like making him an admin could cause problems with very little upside. –Joke 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   (With that said, I very much agree with User:Sdedeo's comment above that it is possible to be a very valuable admin and use the tools only sparingly. –Joke 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

10. Neutral to avoid a pile-on. User needs to be less combative, more diplomatic. Themindset 17:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• See ScienceApologist's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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.