Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RockMagnetist

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

RockMagnetist[edit]

Final: 98/3/1. Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) – When Scottywong created a list concerning potential administrative hopefuls, I was one of the most outspoken critics of that list for various reasons. But looking at the list closer, I noticed many editors listed who are rather low key in the project, but with decent scores; and one of these is RockMagnetist.

A geophysics professor, he has been contributing to the project since 2010 and has over 17,000 edits. A strong content contributor, as seen here, he rewrote the Momentum article which is a core topic, and contributed to many other important topics relating to his field.

A well-rounded contributor, he is active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists which he helped develop, and related subject areas, achieving nearly 900 project talkspace edits, something that is unheard of nowadays. His comments always consist of giving advice and using his expertise to find a diplomatic approach to settle conflict, [1], [2] [3], and in articles [4], finding policy based consensus, [5] [6], [7], [8] welcoming and helping new editors [9] [10], evaluating articles for related Wikiprojects [11], clarifying rather confusing areas in regards to his field [12], and seeking advise when unsure [13].

With administrative related tasks, to an average editor, a quick glance might show that RockMagnetist might not have much participation there, but really he just chooses to focus his attention on administrative tasks related to his expertise, which is a preferable trait. He only ventures to AFDs when it involves it here is a recent example and does not simply “votes” as other contributors who actively participate in that area do, despite their unfamiliarity with the content. His comments in AFD show lots of WP:CLUE and patience like here, and here. He also active in WP:AIV [14] [15] and other related administrative tasks.

For most of Wikipedia history, science and physics related articles tended to fall victim to fringe editing, NPOV violations and other severe conflicts, and one of the main reasons why is that there has always been a lack of expert knowledge in that area. As RockMagnetist's edits in that area are never controversial, and he has a careful approach to diplomacy and consensus as shown by the links above (there are many dozens more), consider this question. Do you trust him with the tools? I know nearly all of you will agree with me. Secret account 03:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Secret, for seeking me out and nominating me. I accept your nomination. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am not so much eager to be an admin as willing to help; I prefer to contribute through editing and discussion. However:
  • I would help to deal with backlogs in WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD, and WP:TFD - particularly pages related to science and bibliographies. Help with the latter is especially needed because few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to them.
  • I would help with other page-related tasks such as protecting/unprotecting a page, filling edit requests for protected pages, performing requested moves and merging page histories.
  • I would also like to get more involved in WP:DYK, after building up more experience in reviewing submissions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say the following:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I generally get along very well with other editors and enjoy discussing issues with them. Where others get annoyed with me, it is usually over tagging. I tag a lot of articles, although not before trying to improve them myself. However, some editors mistake me for a drive-by tagger or just don't like to see a tag on their article. If I remain civil, the disagreement rarely lasts long. I can remember only one discussion where I lapsed into incivility, but soon retracted it and I have had good relations with that editor since then.
Sometimes an annoying editor can inadvertently do good. For example, one editor's disruptive behavior led to the formation of WikiProject Bibliographies and significant improvements to several bibliographies (a lot of the history can be traced starting at this AfD and this ANI).
I think what gives me the greatest stress is seeing a well-meaning and energetic, but misguided, editor create messes faster than I can clean them up. A good example is Schrödinger equation during January 2012. However, I find that by being patient and engaging with the editor I can steer the article in a good direction.
I have mediated successfully in a few disputes. For example, I found a few editors in a seemingly intractable dispute over Lake Michigan–Huron; I helped Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) and DanHobley (talk · contribs) to get them moving forward again. It was little more than a stub at the time but is now B-quality.
Additional question from B
4. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: The deletion guide for BLP's says that if the notability of the person is ambiguous, I may take their wishes into account. (Although it doesn't follow by strict logic, I should probably not consider their wishes if they are clearly notable). In general, a WP biography is like any other unauthorized biography - there is no requirement that the subject like its contents. However, the presumption in favor of privacy is very important, whether a BLP is being discussed for deletion or not. I would just give extra weight to privacy if the BLP were not likely to add much to Wikipedia. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Have you seen an administrator misuse his position and you made a comment to it? If yes, where? If no, how would you act if you see one?--Razionale (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I haven't seen any examples of misuse. I did question an early closure of a PROD one time, but I was satisfied with the response. I also criticized a deletion decision that was an example of the poor decisions that admins can make if they aren't familiar with the policies relevant to bibliographies (see the deletion discussion). At the time I wasn't familiar with them either, but I could still see it was a bad decision! The policy outlined at WP:ADMINABUSE looks like common sense to me. First, discuss the issue on the admin's talk page. If that doesn't resolve the issue, I'd get a third opinion from an admin I know and trust. If they agree with my assessment of the situation, I'd put in a request for comment on administrator conduct. Any further actions would be decided collectively. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from DGG

6. If there were an afd on the biography of a moderately important scientist that gave minimal consideration to anything except their purely scientific contributions and publication record, on what conditions would you close the AfD as keep? If the opinion were reasonably divided, would you ever close it as delete? DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A I would like to consider this from the point of view of an ordinary editor first, and then say what I would do as an administrator. I am very aware that it can be difficult to find biographical information on a scientist; sometimes you have to wait for the obituary. That is why we have special notability guidelines for academics. If the subject easily passes the academic notability criteria, that's sufficient. If they are marginal, other considerations become important. In particular, if the nature of their contribution to science is unclear, are we giving them undue weight by creating a separate article on them? (Similar considerations are discussed in WP:BIO1E). I recently withdrew an AfD because someone found a source discussing a specific contribution by the scientist and its broader significance.
As an administrator, I would follow the deletion guidelines for administrators. If there was a reasonable consensus based on arguments that did not violate any core policies, I would follow the consensus. If there was not a consensus and I felt that the arguments were weak, I would enter the discussion as an editor and leave the closure to another admin. And I would take very seriously the guideline, When in doubt, don't delete. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7a How can an admin decide in a contested AfD or other process between what is the better or more important of two competing policies or interpretations ? DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A I would first ask whether both policies were relevant to the reasons for deletion. Also, any one of those reasons is sufficient for deletion; so if notability is established but the article clearly violates WP:BLP, it should be deleted. Beyond that, it's difficult to say much without a specific example, so I'll provide one. When there was an attempt at a mass deletion of scientific bibliographies, the deletionists were arguing WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:POV. However, policies exist that address these concerns for bibliographies: WP:LISTN and WP:LSC. These clearly trumped the others. So it remained to find good sources for each list, and the lists were kept. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7b In such a case, are there any special considerations if they themselves think one of the policies or interpretation is the more important or the correct? DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A I can't imagine an admin deciding in favor of a policy they think is less important or correct! So I think you're really asking, "What if the admin is out of the mainstream/deluded/crazy in their thinking on a particular policy?" Well, a good admin should be aware of that. I was certainly aware from the outset that my thinking in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska was pushing the limits of the policies. I wouldn't do the close on any debate where that was likely; and I certainly wouldn't do administration in an area where I don't have enough experience to know whether my interpretation is unusual. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I'm not convinced a calm, mature, educated, nondramatic grownup will fit in with the rest of us, but it's worth a shot I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. If you risk nothing, you gain nothing. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest risk is that RM will become a jittery, immature, dramatic child if promoted. The upside to that, of course, is they'll fit right in.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I resemble that remark, Bbb, and will call for censure. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The metrics are strong; 45% to article space, >3 edits per page which shows dedication to seeing an issue through rather than just driving by, and no less than 300 edits per month since January 2012, but what strikes me most is what Secret pointed out in his nomination and what's been pointed out in his/her answer to question 3: a willingness and an eagerness to discuss issues rather than gripe about them, a willingness to mediate calmly and seek to solve problems rather than punish users, and an overall calm civil nature. Coupled with a ringing endorsement from Secret, I am ecstatic to strongly support this nomination. Go Phightins! 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Per nomination. Appears to be a valuable, serious contributor and good candidate for adminship. Iselilja (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per above. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 18:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per floquenbeam. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Floq. After all, this isn't rock science! It's RockMagnetist (okay, that was lame, I admit it)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: Yes. An actual grown-up! :) --Stfg (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support My own relatively in depth editing and discussion interaction with this user over several days, a few months ago, leads me to support. He was knowledgeable and focused, as well as communicative and willing listen and alter course. Thanks for volunteering. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to hear from you, Alanscottwalker. I looked back on our interactions over Lake Michigan-Huron and realized that you deserved as much credit as DanHobley and I - if not more - for turning the article around. I humbly apologize for that oversight! I remember how great it was to have someone with your good sense in the discussion. I have reworded my statement of accomplishments. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The interactions I've had with RM lead me to believe that he'll(?) be a good addition to the admin corps. LadyofShalott 20:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nom. INeverCry 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - cool head, good knowledge of policy, and excellent work over at WikiProject Women Scientists. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - No concerns. I did a brief scan through Wikipedia space to see where his name was mentioned, and the few items I found there were all positive. Here's an ANI from November 2011, and here he is working cooperatively with a peer reviewer on an article he was trying to get to GA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seems too good to be working as a greeter and janitor but I like that he will set a good example. Warden (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support - For all the obvious reasons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per all above. LlamaAl (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - no areas of concern. GiantSnowman 22:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support absolutely, and without reservation. Kablammo (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — -dainomite   23:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I was glad to see the "Hero Of The Momentum Article" nominated, and after looking at the answers above and poking around his history, he looks like a great choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Longterm user with a clean blocklog and quality contributions, deleted contribs look good too. ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support base on previous interaction. -- KTC (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I cannot find anything negative about the user.--Razionale (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support an excellent candidate who I think will make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per Floq. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support All looks good, happy to support. Widr (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Very strong support — For starters, we need more editors with expertise in the sciences. I'm glad we have someone like RockMagnetist, and I hope he will continue all the good work he puts into physics-related articles long after becoming an administrator. Secret's outstanding nomination statement is what cinches it for me: the links provided demonstrate a resounding degree of patience, experience, policy knowledge, and good sense. He is excellent at resolving disputes and getting people focused on the crux of a given situation. I have tremendous confidence that RockMagnetist would put the sysop tools to good use. Glad to support. Kurtis (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems capable and level-headed, has great content work, and is good at dispute resolution to boot. I spot-checked the AfD contributions and everything looks good. Will make a fine admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good to me. Webclient101talk 02:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Quiet people who do good work are likely to be excellent admins, especially when they like whittling down backlogs. And "there is no requirement that the subject like its contents" shows that he knows the subjunctive! Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support and support... seems good and will not misuse Wikipedia with his new tools. Mediran (t • c) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: RM is a strong editor overall. I am especially impressed with the 45.15% of edits to articles. I have no problem at all with this user becoming an admin. Best of luck, Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 04:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - zero concerns. Stalwart111 06:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support: no concerns at all.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I do not expect any problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs)
  37. Support Definitely qualified--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Technically it could be argued that there should be more AfD experience as he plans to work in that area, but overall looks very solid candidate so its not an issue for me.--Staberinde (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Not come across him that I can remember (sometimes not a bad thing, that...) but I like what I see here. I can't see him rushing into AfD and making PoV closes against consensus. Or otherwise wrecking the place. He has opinions about how things could be improved, and seems to be going about things in a reasonable way. Peridon (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Easy support. An expert in their field (and a scientific one at that), with a strong understanding of the Wikipedia way of doing things and with excellent temperament and communication skills - yes please! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. As nom, 41 comments late, opps. Secret account 14:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --B (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support —stay (sic)! 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, this isn't rock(et) science :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like just the type of calm, methodical mind we need in the admin corps. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good Track and has over 29 articles and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Too smart and calm for an admin.TCO (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Stephen 22:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. high likelihood of being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Level-headed editor who doesn't sound like they'll let POV stand in the way of policy. Miniapolis 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, no reason for rejection. Ducknish (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support because I see no good reason not to. With regard to the oppose section, let me say that no administrator is required to agree with the guidelines and policies as they currently exist. But I see no evidence to suggest that RockMagnetist would actually violate them, which is all that matters. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Great, drama-free contributor. No concerns at all. — sparklism hey! 09:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Not someone I've crossed paths with before, but looking at the contribs and history, and the broad support from a variety of people I respect here, it would appear this is a good choice for the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. No issues really. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Not a user I've run into before (that's probably good, since it indicates a general avoidance of the drama-heavy parts of Wikipedia), but his stats and answers look good, and a review of his edits and interactions shows a mature, competent, level-headed editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I've no concerns. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support As per Floquenbeam - Mop please Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Per reasons stated in the nomination. Obviously this is someone with abundant clue who interacts well with others. Hand them a Swiffer. - MrX 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - After a review of contributions and answers to questions. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. An academic scientist? I've gotta support! And I've been another participant in the policy discussion that is linked in oppose #1, and I'm not seeing a problem. I trust the candidate to understand what consensus is, and I am confident that there is enough clue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I take "An academic scientist? I've gotta support!" as a joke. That cannot possibly be a sufficient reason for support by itself. But you added others reasons for supporting him, so I'm not going to make an issue of it.--Razionale (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Razionale, you remind me that I'm not cut out to be a comedian. Sorry! I said that because I'm an academic scientist myself. But I realize, now that you point it out, that to anyone not knowing that, it sounded like I was being sarcastic. Not my intention at all! Oh well, please think of it now as meaning that I consider the candidate to be very intelligent and well-read. Whether or not any of that applies to me as well, well... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Razionale saw your comment as sarcastic, just not enough reason to justify my promotion to admin. I've seen a few examples of academics who couldn't adjust to the Wikipedia culture, so I know what he/she means. But it's also nice to meet the occasional academic here - especially if they're supporting my nomination! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no big deal, I hope. And with that, the faculty meeting should be adjourned. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjourned? Good! So I can finally go to the bathroom. :) --Razionale (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I'm very impressed. I've perused your talk page archives going back to February 2012 and your contributions, and I'm impressed with your ability to remain calm during disputes, seek policy-based solutions, your wide breadth of editing experience (with more than a thousand edits in the WP space in addition to solid article work), and overall sense of clue you exhibit in your work here. I'm more than happy to support a low-key editor who's a valuable contributor, interacts very well with other editors, and doesn't stir up drama. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Wizardman 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good editor. Sure.--Pratyya (Hello!) 04:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support no issues --Guerillero | My Talk 08:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support substantial contributor who demonstrates maturity, spine, and good humor. -- Scray (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support No concerns at all Jebus989✰ 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support the admin bit for anti-drama grownups. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Moved to support His answers to my concerns were very levelheaded and sensible, much more than I think I would've under similar circumstances. As long as he doesn't jump right in to closing contentious AfD debates, one more levelheaded admin won't do damage. Also, I'm biased by his academic background. Anybody who's had to spend time dealing with legions of undegrads has to have developed a good sense of patience. RayTalk 02:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Looks good. SpencerT♦C 04:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I haven't had much interaction with this editor, but have read this debate and thought about the concerns that one editor has raised. I've taken a close look at one recent AfD about a Polish dinosaur expert, and have seen a calm willingness to engage with others, and accept emerging consensus. Those are the attributes of a good administrator. Good luck to you in a tough job, RockMagnetist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Solid answers, strong contributions, good content editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per Cullen328.--В и к и T 12:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Like the the answers to the additional questions. Spot checks look good. If RockMagnetist had been actively seeking admin I might have questioned the motives and timing of withdrawing the AfD mentioned in the oppose section, but think it was honest move. I also see no problem with an administrator that argues some policy should be changed, as long as they either carry out existing policy in their actions or leave those cases to other admins. PaleAqua (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Looks good to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support We have enough administrators with rocks in their heads. This editor rocks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support seems like a reliable person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Looks good to me! TBrandley (review) 14:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Clean block log with no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure with a decent percentage of work to mainspace. We are in need of additional closers at AfD and this seems to be a likely person to pitch in intelligently with the science and academics sort of nominations. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Strong candidate, impressive nomination statement. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk)
  85. Support per Carrite. Calm and methodical editor is a good material for adminship. Beagel (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Best candidate in a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. The combination of an admin and an expert, to me, is gold. It means I can pester them when I have a question. RM also communicates well and appears to have as cool a head as the rocks xe deals with. I guardedly recommend that RM spend a bit more time on the drama boards. RM's participation there has been almost non-existent. Those boards could use all of the detached temperance they can get, and perhaps what admins appear unable to do (significantly reduce the drama), RM can do using the laws of physics, of which I know about as much as the scarecrow before he got a brain. Finally, I do not hold it against RM that their first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was autobiographical.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't completely ignored the drama boards, but I see an admin response as the last resort. When my son was young I learned the effectiveness of redirecting attention; and my preferred approach with ANI's is similar. I go to a contested article and say, "Look, a source!" and get their attention away from the personal stuff. Sometimes all they need is a chance to cool down. Or I add uncontroversial material to the article until the subject of the dispute becomes moot.
    I had to write an autobiography - the stuff they had written about me was scandalous. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. I recently found RockMagnetist to be collegial and intelligent while working out a perplexing problem at Talk:List of lakes by area, the discussion spilling over to the associated Lake Michigan–Huron talk page. I trust him to keep a level head. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support No issues. I don't find the opposes an issue for me, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Looks fine. --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.--rogerd (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. (edit conflict) Unconvincing opposes combined with a frighteningly excellent candidate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support – No concerns. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support with pleasure. An entirely admirable candidate who's a refreshing change from the more usual MMORPG kids. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Why not? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Seems a good, trustworthy candidate for the WP:MOP. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Had a few interactions, only good memories. — HHHIPPO 17:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. It is with reluctance that I am inclined oppose this RfA because RockMagnetist has done much fine editing of science subjects. However his statement in reply to question 1 "particularly pages related to science and bibliographies. Help with the latter is especially needed because few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to them" rings alarm bells. RockMagnetist is currently engaged in a policy debate [16] about the notability of scholars and researchers. In the AfD for the BLP of a borderline (for notability) palaeontologist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska he comments, in sarcasm, "so much emphasis on notability!" Well, notability is what it is about in determining the suitability of articles for inclusion. His comment "few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to them" seems to suggest that he thinks he knows better than consensus. I am reluctant to give administrative powers to somebody with such strong and arguably non-consensus views on policy. If he were to give an undertaking to avoid admin activity in such areas I would reconsider my opposition. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Xxanthippe, I'm amazed that you have managed to interpret my answer to question 1 in such a negative way. I mean specifically that few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to bibliographies. I have been involved in several AfD's related to bibliographies, and seen several editors state the opinion that bibliographies are not a legitimate part of Wikipedia. Also, few responses indicate an awareness of WP:LISTN (compared, say, to the number that know about WP:GNG) or that selection criteria are the answer to concerns like WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As an admin, my role would be to recognize when a consensus is based on the relevant policies. If it isn't, I would put my editor hat on and discuss those policies, leaving the admin decision to someone else. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am involved in a policy debate specifically on the role of other factors besides notability in deciding whether to keep an article. I want the first two sentences in the General notes to read:

    It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. A biography should be a full and balanced account of the subject's public life (see Pseudo-biographies); and its sources should comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    The real challenge for academic articles is deciding on a reasonable interpretation of "full and balanced", and that is where the discussion is now. So far I have seen no sign that the other editors (including you) find my point of view unreasonable, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it here. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "So much emphasis on notability!" I consider that to be a mild statement of astonishment, but I can understand how it could be interpreted as sarcasm. My apologies for any hurt feelings. In my rationale for deletion, I specifically say that the article might meet the academic notability criteria but still be eligible for deletion because it has little prospect of ever being more than a pseudo-biography. So I am disappointed that there has been so much discussion of h-indices and so little of my real rationale. I'm not at all sure that my rationale is truly grounds for deletion, but I would at least like to see it discussed more. And I'm hardly forcing my views down anyone's throat; I have said far less in that discussion than a few other editors.
    In summary, I think my views on deletion policy for academics are a little atypical, but they are arguably based on existing policies and I am trying to build consensus for them, particularly in that policy debate. I don't think that there are any grounds in my record for thinking that I would use administrative powers to impose my views. Instead, if I think that the discussion in an AfD is missing the point, I'll enter the debate as an ordinary editor. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few thoughts, if I may: (a) Taking part as an editor in proposing policy changes, especially when one does so from an expert perspective, is a useful service and doesn't imply that one would use the bit to enforce one's view against consensus; (b) Proposing AfDs that end up as keeps and having ones !vote overridden by consensus doesn't mean that one would use the bit to close AfDs against consensus. The question is not whether the candidate has views, but whether he would act impartially. From his answer above, I'm confident that he would, especially since he was hesitant about accepting nomination. (c) "so much emphasis on notability!" doesn't come across to me as sarcastic; rather, it appears to be an allusion to the sentence in WP:PROF that reads: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." If so, it's a valid reference to the consensus represented by the WP:PROF guideline. (d) The things raised here are about biographies; has it been overlooked that what RM said was about bibliographies? I suspect he is correct that "few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to [bibliographies]". (I for one certainly know nothing about them.) --Stfg (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It has occurred to me that by describing my views as "atypical", I am overstating my overall disagreement with policy. Actually, my record in AfD's so far is 100% agreement with the final decision. I think that percentage is going to go down when the decision is made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska, but I have no regrets - it has been an interesting discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    surely you realize that anyone can attain 100% by limiting themselves to the obvious? DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My main purpose in citing that stat was to demonstrate that I'm not in the habit of choosing contrarian views. It's very easy to say that I can limit myself to the obvious - but have you actually looked at my AfD contributions? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reluctant oppose I do not feel comfortable with the candidate. I'm always pleased to argue with anyone about the standards for academics, and I'm aware I am saying this as someone taking almost a diametrically opposed position on the issues involved, and for both of it is a main area of our interest -- in my case to the extent that I would be willing to decrease work on my other areas of interest here to concentrate on this issue if I had reason to be really concerned about the trend. I know I've never used the button for my views on this area--even were it permitted, I would in any case prefer to argue the matter and convince others about the principles, rather than the relative triviality of winning individual AfDs. I hope he'll do likewise, but I do not assume it, in part because of the recent confrontations on these issues. Despite the totally correct and unimpeachably orthodox answers to the questions i asked, my feel about this is strong enough that it forces me to express my doubts. Since he will clearly become an admin, I hope I'm wrong, and will gladly apologize when that proves to be the case DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, you were involved in my first AfD, and we have crossed paths a number of times since, so I am saddened that you choose to judge me based on a single disagreement. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saddened that DGG feels that way. I suspect it comes out of the way that AfD has become such a pitched battle on Wikipedia (having nothing to do with the candidate), so that anyone on one "side" ends up feeling uncomfortable about anyone else on the other side. (I've come to dislike ever participating in deletion processes for that reason, and I only do so when I have reason to feel very strongly about something, myself.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. RockMagnetist has been ignoring his academic work ever since he became an editor here, his publication count has been falling dramatically, and now he wants to be an administrator??? No way! RockMagnetist's boss (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs) [reply]
    I'll get that paper out any day now! I promise! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I have no history with this candidate, an obvious future admin, but I feel the need to oppose just prior to the close based on the two opposes above, which raise concerns. To be brief, I fear that granting a lifetime adminship to this type of editor creates an elite class or "rank" which runs counter to my ideals for the project, where we are all are equal. There is something self-congratulatory about this Rfa that raises my hackles, and I strongly urge RM to take extreme care with the tools, especially the block button, and edit with humility. My best wishes in the coming months and years. Jusdafax 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Moral Support. I've only run across RockMagnetist once in my travels in checking/editing articles on this Wikipedia, and RockMagnetist seems like a good candidate for this based on the description above. However, since I have to base my votes on the actual experience I have had with the user as an editor, I cannot sway my vote either way. Either way, I am leaning more towards a support, but since I vote based on interaction, I have neither any positive nor negative thoughts going through my head, so I vote "Neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just sitting this one out, then? Or is there some No Steel1943 vote? No RfA! custom I've missed? Plutonium27 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this response is directed towards my choice of action, rather than the actual substance of my voting reason, this should have been directed towards me on my talk page. Honestly, this response to my voting reason was rather inappropriate to be said on an RfA. Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's definitely got a point, though. Why comment on an RFA to say, basically, that you have no opinion? Besides, "I have to base my votes on actual experience" isn't correct: people can and often do vote based on examining the candidates' talk page interactions, editing histories, AFD histories, RFA questions, and various other factors. It's a bit like going to the election polls and announcing loudly that you refuse to vote for any of them because none of them have had you around to their house for dinner and drinks. If you want to not vote, that's your right, but why take the time to tell everyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this discussion has seemed to escalate in a manner that is completely improper. Since "Neutral" votes do not negate a "Support" vote like an "Oppose" vote does, the fact that my grounds for my vote have been in question are beyond my comprehension. Technically, for the purposes of an RFA, this is a "vote", and that's exactly what I did; I "voted". I did not have to explain my reasoning behind my vote, but I did out of courtesy. And now, two editors have seems to make assumptions of my reasoning behind my vote, which is very uncalled for. In my statement, I was trying to make a point that I have not run across enough of RockMagnetist's work on Wikipedia to be able to make a judgement call either way based on what I see. Anyone can create an elaborate biography on their site, regardless of how true it is or not (I'm not stating that what RockMagnetist states about themselves on their user space is not true, but since anyone can say whatever they want to about themselves on their user space, it leads me to the question of how true some of this material on there can be.) My vote is based on my familiarity with their work in my experiences in Wikipedia, and that is "only one interaction that could not sway me to vote "Support" or "Oppose". Simple as that. And to recap, the purpose of RFA is to "vote"; it does not have to be a "discussion", but we have the privilege to voice the reasoning behind our votes, and that is what I did, just like all the other editors had the opportunity to do in their "Support" or "Oppose" votes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Steel1943. I don't mind getting a bit of moral support. Just for curiosity, where did you run across me? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey RockMagnetist. No worries; honestly, I hope you get the RFA nomination, but I just can't get my vote swayed either way.
    I ran across you while I was doing some edits on Index of physics articles, and all of it's corresponding 28 other articles. That, and I had created the "index template" for that index prior to figuring out a way to organize all of those articles in a better fashion; I ended up nominating the "template" for speedy deletion criterion T3 after it was no longer necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (moving to support on further reflection) RockMagnetist is unquestionably a good and valued editor, and I do not consider adminship a big deal, but I wonder if he has thought through carefully what he proposes to do with Adminship. He has participated, according to the stats counter, in a total of 35 AfDs, always with the consensus (who among us can say that?) to date. Nevertheless, that seems to me thin grounds on which to propose to close AfD discussions, which can (and often do) become tricky and contentious, as the continuous stream of discussions at DRV would indicate. His interesting attitude towards Notability, which Xxanthippe has highlighted, is a cause for concern - put bluntly, somebody who doesn't understand the gatekeeping role our (admittedly cumbersome and ever-growing) notability guidelines fill in making sure important subjects are covered, and, conversely, in keeping garbage out, should think twice before jumping into that area. RayTalk 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ray, your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska was insightful, so I think your opinion on notability is worth listening to. However, notability is just one of 14 official reasons for deletion. In particular, reason 7 (WP:V) could apply because the sources provide very little information on the subject; and reason 9 (WP:BLP) because the subject is arguably notable for only one event. My thinking is, the weaker the arguments for notability, the more important these considerations become. I fully understood when I nominated this article for deletion that these arguments might not persuade other editors; and if I was concerned only with my 100% record on consensus, I wouldn't have nominated it. But I think that sometimes an AfD can be useful for exploring the application of policy.
    Remember, too, that I have no intention of "jumping" into admin duties. I didn't seek this nomination, and I don't intend to fling my weight around if I am nominated. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That "one event" argument bothered me most of your comments, because it seemed like searching for a strained interpretation in defense of an already-stated position. How can the publication of multiple papers on multiple species be called oneevent. Many scientists base their reputation on a single expedition- DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to continue arguing this in two places. Anyone interested in this debate can follow it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RockMagnetist&oldid=1140255276"