Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr Zak (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 7 July 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]]: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ScienceApologist

Discuss here (15/15/2) Ending 01:59, 2006-07-14 (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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. --ScienceApologist 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support, why not? Poloyoe 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support bravo! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support. Yeah, why not? SushiGeek 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Support. Definitely deserves to get the mop. DarthVader 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. 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)[reply]
    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
  12. Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. He has shown dedication to the project through his edits. Dr Zak 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Apart from his nomination statement, he would actively use admin tools, so... Why not? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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)[reply]
    If you say so. :p — The King of Kings 17:07 July 07 '06
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)[reply]
    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[1] 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Oppose -- poor nomination. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose underwhelmed, unconvinced, unconfident. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, nothing to convince me that the tools are necessary here. RandyWang (raves/rants) 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose loose canon, probable sockpuppet, abusive near vandalism bigotry--F.O.E. 06:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sockpuppets" (alias accounts) don't make over 9000 edits. Does anyone bother to read the stats? Mostly Rainy 06:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, Bad nomination. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. Oppose Very poor nomination. Xoloz 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Poor nomination and minimal responses to questions--Heidijane 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ScienceApologist&oldid=62586335"