Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist

Discuss here (6/10/2) Ending 01:59, 2006-07-14 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) – Self Nom 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)
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)

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[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)

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)
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)
7. Oppose underwhelmed, unconvinced, unconfident. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 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)

10. Oppose, Bad nomination. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:35, 7 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)

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
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)

Comments

• See ScienceApologist's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See ScienceApologist's edit count from Interiot's tool2.

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)

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.