Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scientizzle

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.

Scientizzle[edit]

Final: (68/0/1); ended 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientizzle (talk · contribs) - I first encountered Scientizzle a month ago when he brought some complicated sockpuppetry and vandalism to my attention. I was pleased by his thoroughness in reporting the problem, providing relevant diffs and links to block logs. I learned that he was interested in becoming an administrator, and offered to go over his edit history and give some advice. I found nothing to worry about, and offered to nominate him as soon as he was ready. Scientizzle has logged over 8000 edits in over a year of consistent activity on the project. His contributions range from reverting vandalism, minor wikignome-like tweaks, and serious article creation and improvement. His high user-talk space count is evidence of his committment to WP:BITE, taking the time to explain to users what they can do to help the project. Scientizzle is polite, conscientious, and knowledgeable of WP policies and procedures. I am confident he will make an excellent administrator. -- Merope 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for a thoughtful nomination...I accept. — Scientizzle 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: A sizable portion of my edits have been combating vandalism (with associated user talk and AIV activity, and resulting in an oft-vandalized user page), so it's natural that I'd be active at WP:AIV. I've also been a regular speedy deletion tagger and an avid user of proposed deletions, so I'd willingly lend support to the (commonly backlogged) CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD. WP:BLP/N is an area that I've only recently entered, but such a tumultuous territory is always in need of admin input and actions. Finally, I have a good deal of experience at XfD—particularly AfD—and would extend my participation to closing completed discussions (I've already done a few). Most of all, I'm a quick study and am willing to assist in any area that could use additional help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I recently overhauled HIV and AIDS misconceptions for factual accuracy, spelling/grammar, organization, clarity, and citation style; I'm rather pleased at how much clearer the page reads. I'm currently improving a woefully inadequate Dopamine receptor article, and that seems to be shaping up well.
The majority of my mainspace contributions are decidedly wikignomish (copy editing, cleanup, sourcing, ad nauseum), not to mention vandalism reversions, but I have created a number of (I believe) very useful stubs that run the gamut from little-known signaling molecules to conspicuously absent non-science topics. I've worked to expand a plethora of science articles that require something of an expert's touch, but readily lend my writing and editing to any article a run across while surveying recent changes or good ol' Special:Random. I'm lucky to have real-life experience in biological research and copy editing, a rare combination that serves me well as I tackle the grammar and prose in more technical articles.
Additionally, my work at the science reference desk and, for example, Talk:Cannabis (drug) have been fine examples of the balanced, reasoned style with which I approach my edits. I think it's paramount that all information in Wikipedia be accurate and well-sourced as this project serves as a prominent athenaeum for the general public.
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: By nature, I'm a very amicable and agreeable individual, which, I believe, is reflected in my Wikipedia edits. It's rare that I get in edit conflicts over anything that isn't vandalism-reversion, especially as I've gained more experience.
The only recent interaction that caused me any irritation was with DesignReferences (talk · contribs), a new editor that contacted me about the now-deleted page, Grace Bonney, seeking to have the article deleted on behalf of the subject because of "defamatory content" and vandalism. Not thinking much of it, I responded, pointing the editor to a few important pages. I even tried to help by opening an AN/I thread asking for input. I felt the subject was of gray-area notability and I knew there was some precedent for subject-requested deletions of marginally notable biographies. Anyways, the thread devolved somewhat, the article was speedily deleted, and I had unfortunately overlooked that DesignReferences had contributed to the vandalism of said Grace Bonney article, dragging me into some sour exchanges between other editors. In any case, off-Wikipedia evidence suggested that the whole thing was likely a trolling ploy. I've no problem assuming good faith, but more skeptical thoroughness would have served me well...
My relative lack of conflicts on Wikipedia is, I think, a testament to a congenial disposition and willingness to admit to—and learn from—those inevitable mistakes. I've helped a lot of new editors find their way as contributors and acted as a persistent voice-of-reason in a variety of disputes; I've experienced that article talk & user talk discussions on can be highly successful when editors treat each other with a modicum of respect.
Optional question from coelacan
4. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hmmm...good question. I looked through my contribs (as discussions in which I had participated would be the simplest to cover) and found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of the Apocalypse (2nd nomination). I actually nominated Eve of the Apocalypse for deletion in October '06 because it was a fan-made Warcraft mod/map that failed WP:WEB & Wikipedia is not a game guide. It closed as "No consensus" based on the single claim that it made Blizzard's battle.net hall of fame. That's true, but I contend that such a claim fails to meet WP:WEB's "The...content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" as a sufficient claim of notability since battle.net is run by Blizzard and only covers their games. Additionally, there were (and still are) no other presented sources with which to verify the article's content, and the page is even more of a game guide than it was when I nominated it. Finally, another member of the aforementioned hall of fame was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Wars roughly a week earlier.
I disagree with the no consensus closure because the keep recommendations were largely based on the existence of articles on other such maps, being "informative", and the battle.net hall of fame status. I think, overall, the case for deletion was stronger than the case for keeping. I do, however, understand that deletion discussions focused on notability can be a bit touchy; it's probably generally practical to keep content rather than delete it in cases of perceived gray-area notability. While I disagree with the AfD outcome, I also respect it...but I will have no qualms against any potential re-nomination of this article for the exact same concerns.
Optional question from MacGyverMagic
5. What do you believe to be your weak points when it comes to Wikipedia editing (and admin tasks in particular)? - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Off the top of my head: images. I have little experience dealing with proper licensing of images and would need to spend some time studying the relevant policies before I'd feel confident lending a hand to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and the elephantine backlog of image CSDs. Also, I have not had much interaction with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope to learn from more experienced admins the nuances of balancing the project's massively open source nature with practical intervention to prevent damaging edit wars.
As I mentioned above, I consider myself a quick study. I'm confident that I could be a valuable participant in these (and other) areas in which I currently have little experience.
A question from bainer (talk)
6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Ignoring the rules should be done rarely and judiciously. In my opinion, IAR exists as a safety valve to prevent bureaucracy from stifling positive, practical changes to the project; it is not an excuse to expedite an action that could benefit from community discussion. The yang to IAR's yin is the application of common sense. A block for WP:POINT violations may be advisable, even necessary, in some instances, but only after less drastic avenues have been exhausted. WP:SNOW should rarely be invoked, but, with ample application of common sense, it has been used effectively for speedy keep closures of XfD and speedy deletion of obviously unencyclopedic content that may not fall under a strict interpretation of WP:CSD.
I'm not huge on process wonkery (I don't even like that phrase), but I'm a strong proponent of transparency—too many IAR actions (particularly inappropriate deletions) show insufficiently clear rationale, leading to confusion and irritation (and worse) within the community. I feel the justification behind any IAR action should be crystal clear to an uninvolved editor, and relevant policies/discussions/reasoning/precedents should presented as obviously as possible...such clarity can only reduce the negative effects that can accompany even good-faith unilateral action.
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: This topic would require, in my opinion, reasonable case-by-case variation in enforcement. It is important to strike a balance between assuming good faith on the part of the editor, not biting newbies and protecting both Wikipedia and the article subjects from these types of problems. Reverting unsourced material is easy, and one needn't worry about the 3 revert rule (for derogatory and unsourced content, per WP:BLP); the obvious step is to inform the editor in question of the relevant policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and living person biographies. What happens from that point—the response of the editor and the nature of the content being applied—should dictate further actions in regard to warnings and blocks. I would expect to be rigorous in enforcing this rule so long as I feel the editor has been given good-faith information on why such material is inappropriate and how the situation can be remedied.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scientizzle before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I have good experiences of this user whose (clearly proven in his contribs) scientific background is a bonus, as is his informed, objective view of Cannabis (drug), one of our more controversial topics, all of which will make him a very welcome admin, SqueakBox 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nominator support. Obviously.  :) -- Merope 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Mature editor, experienced, dedicated, welcoming to new editors, and an already great list of article contribs. κaτaʟavenoTC 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I have looked through some of his contribs. Have not found anything of concern. -Mschel 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no problems with this user. Acalamari 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems whatsoever..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support competent and cooperative. YechielMan 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I like you. Yanksox 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seems to have everything in order. Good work, organized, and a good editor. Jmlk17 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per more than adequate vandal whacking plus article writing. Addhoc 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. In your very competent edit history, I noted with particular appreciation the light humor in this this diff, which suggests a lighthearted touch, and the concern for users in this one. Good luck. --Shirahadasha 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support' look alright.-- danntm T C 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support On viewing the contributions you can clearly see a competent editor, a good user to have as an administrator. Jsc83 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support happily. Productive user without any black marks to make me think twice. Helpful as well. Arkyan • (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Sufficient experience with demonstrated understanding of process. Trustworthy. Also, you gotta love the name Scientizzle. -- Jreferee 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Suppport - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I see no problems here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Scientizzle politely informed me of a mistake and cleared the cunfusion, and after going through his contribs a little I find no problem Altosax456 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A thinking person who seems to be well involved and aware of the issues. --Kevin Murray 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Definitely someone who can be trusted with the tools. One Night In Hackney303 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support We need more scientists here. Xiner (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Totally thought he was already an admin. Rockstar (T/C) 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. fine candidate for an admin who's doing a great job building an encyclopedia. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Handles himself well (doesn't get hot under the collar) and is familiar with the project. And he knows English fairly well.  :) He's got my vote. The Transhumanist 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Very good editor. --Carioca 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support due to excellent contributions and lack of a WikiProject endorsement. Appears to be trustworthy, and adminship is no big deal. Twiddle away. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, not enough edits in the MediaWiki namespace. Oh, wait a minute... >Radiant< 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - around for a year, not insane? Yer in - David Gerard 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support no concerns here whatsoever. Excellent candidate. —Anas talk? 12:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. PeaceNT 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as a good candidate who I think will use the tools judiciously... and per Nihonjoe (talk · contribs). Don't even get me started on why I think Wikiproject endorsements are an utterly daft idea.--Isotope23 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Supportizzle. He's closing AFD's already. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Goodness me, yes! Lollipop Lady 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Definately a good user to receive tools. Captain panda 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. It doesn't happen to be ebonics in your name, hmm? bibliomaniac15 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support; all looks good, and also per David Gerard, LOL. Besides, you've been the target of repeated recent trolling so you must be doing something right. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support; strong candidate in my experience. Rockpocket 01:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as a great candidate for adminship. — Wenli 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: Seems to have plenty of experience and seems well deserving of the administrative tools. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support no problems here. —AldeBaer 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to very strong support upon further investigation. Scientizzle doesn't "need" it at this point, but why not mention merits beyond the lack of any reason to oppose? Candidate displays good language, level-headedness and flawless attitude towards Wikipedia in general. Strong answers to all questions. I'm compelled to even invoke the rolemodel near-stereotype here. —AldeBaer 08:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - no issues here, far as I can see. Good reputation over on AIV, too. Yep! - Alison ☺ 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Merope nominated you? Highly doubt there are any problems, then. Next please :) – Riana ऋ 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Sorry, I don't have a witty remark. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per nom and above Bucketsofg 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support All looks good and this made be laugh. Adambro 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. This candidate's CHIMP-T coefficient is 5.09296, just barely enough for me to support. The CHIMP-T coefficient, calculated as the square of the sum of the number of preserved edits to the Category talk, Help talk, Image talk, MediaWiki talk, and Portal talk namespaces, divided by π, is the most advanced method to calculate RfA candidates' level of spiritual oneness with the spirit of the Great Wiki. A candidate with a CHIMP-T coefficient of less than 5 are liable to delete the main page and/or block Jimbo. As Scientizzle scores just above that, I endorse the statement that Scientizzle Is Not Likely To Go On A SpreeTM. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. SupportGood answers to questions.Shindo9Hikaru 01:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support with a particularly clear and reasonable response to the question on IAR.DGG 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support John254 03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Yep good candidate. Very thorough, would be an asset. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Good, experienced contributor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utcursch (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support, absolutely. Deiz talk 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. support in common to my evaluation criterions __ ABF __ - - Talk - - 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support without hesitation. -- DS1953 talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A.Z. 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Only 1 MediaWiki talk edit? I dunno... haha jk of course I support.--Wizardman 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support should make an excellant admin. Davewild 09:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. – Steel 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 18:15:32, Sunday, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Good steady editor - worthwhile candidate. I agree with Real Stephen and others above. --VS talk 08:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --dario vet (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. ElinorD (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Guettarda 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. WjBscribe 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. No obvious problems; withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement, per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How would a WikiProject endorse a candidate? I think the WikiProject would have to take a vote on there own. Have any users ever been endorsed by a WikiProject (Besides WikiProject Endorsments)? Please keep in mind that the RFA is not an election. -Mschel 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would kindly recommend that the candidate ignore the above request for an endorsement. I, among many editors, would consider this unacceptable canvassing. Pascal.Tesson 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Kelly Martin's talk page (or archive) for her reasons for opposing users without WikiProject endorsement. Nishkid64 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, going around looking for a WikiProject to endorse you seems to be a bit excessive, especially considering that most admin noms seem to be approached by a third party in the first place. So making this demand of the nom after he's been nominated, rather than of the nominator before he's made the nomination, seems rather absurd. Also, it would add another level of bureaucracy and repetition to the RfA process - each member of the WikiProject would be voting for the nominee twice - once on the WikiProject's page concerning the endorsement, and again here. We don't need to be expanding the RfA process to WikiProject talk pages! The Transhumanist 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice should suffice. The Transhumanist 19:27, 24 April 2007 (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/Scientizzle&oldid=1142506105"