Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seicer

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

Seicer

Final (104/18/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer (talk · contribs) - I'd like to put Seicer forward for your consideration. He's been around a while now (May 2006) and he's gained over 11,000 edits in this time. He's a member of the mediation committee where I've seen his excellent level head in some contentious mediations, and through both on wiki and off wiki (vis the mailing list) discussion he's always a very neutral party in disputes. Seicer has some great mainspace contributions, mostly centred around Kentucky articles (Most notably University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky, Ashland, Kentucky and Cityscape of Lexington, Kentucky). One of the main reasons he was asked to put forward a nomination for the mediation committee was because of his calm head when responding in threads on AN, AN/I and WQA - he's neutral, yet gives sound advice to all parties. I expect as an adminstrator he would be able to go even further in these discussions. He's a good vandal fighter as well, with many accurate reports to AIV - it would be of great benefit for him to have the block button, where I am certain he would use it effectively. One key thing I like to see in an administrator is accountability for past mistakes - He has created User:Seicer/Open (which I encourage you to read) to acknowledge his previous errors so he, and other users can learn from past mistakes. It's only fair I bring to your attention that he was blocked in September for a violation of the 3RR rule, but I am sure this is firmly in that past and he understands the judgement error made at this point in time. All in all, he's a very trusted user, and I fully expect him to make a fine administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept the nomination and would like to thank Ryan for the courteous and amiable note. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: When I first came onto Wikipedia a little over a year and a half ago (I lurked for ~6 months prior), I was very much mesmerized by the wealth of information available at my fingertips. I began editing in earnest, beginning with articles that were local to my region and state -- Kentucky, primarily, and focused on topics of interest, such as those relating to bridges, urban exploration, cities and buildings. Over the course of time, my edits began to take on more janitorial role. It was not for a lack of interest in Wikipedia, but that I had recused myself from editing numerous articles due to possible conflicts of interest between Wikipedia and my four web-sites, which are a reflection of not only my interests, but my obsessions, which focus on bridges, urban scenes, abandonments and travel.

I found that I actually enjoyed the janitorial role. I limited myself to basic duties at first, doing vandalism reverts, applying warning notices, and making minor comments at ANI. I later expanded that to WP:WQA, where I was allowed to become more involved in dispute resolution and found myself to be very much wanted in an area of Wikipedia that is often left by the wayside. Although I haven't contributed as much there lately, I still consider it to be my old stomping grounds, and I learned a lot regarding dispute resolution/conflict resolution and methods to solve issues in an amicable manner. In the future, I would like to take a greater role at not only WQA, but WP:DR in general, lending an extra hand to where it is needed.

I expanded to WP:3O, where I mediated two discussions. Although I was limited in my participation due to an extended illness in January and part of February, I would love to take on more mediations in that regard. I also applied for Mediation Committee and was accepted due to, in part, my prior contributions at WQA. I jumped in with what is arguably one of my most difficult conflicts to handle in regards to Cold Fusion, and although I am not handling it conventionally with a regular tally and decision, I do believe that working with the editors, handing disputes firmly, and being proactive in encouraging other editors to join in on the discussion will result in an article that could easily pass GA. While it may take considerably longer, I feel that quality trumps a rushed decision. Through it, I've fielded some nasty complaints and some rather hostile messages, but I hold nothing against any editor and look forward to working with them in the future.

Further, I have ANI watchlisted, since I am an active contributor there -- mainly for support or for minor comments.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I find it quite hard to describe my best contributions to the project. One of my earlier forays into editing was Cityscape of Ashland, Kentucky which was later promoted to GA. I have a love for history and for cities, and my personal research into both led me to not only contribute to my web-sites and writings, but to Wikipedia. I am also very proud of Pullman Square, which is a downtown revitalization project whose history is extraordinarily complex and complicated, and which was later promoted to GA status. The same can be said about my other GA appointee, Ashland Community and Technical College. I am also working on the University of Kentucky article, the university I attend currently, in an effort to promote it to GA status.

I am also currently attempting to get Bernie Ward to GA status. I came across the article while mediating a dispute at WP:WQA, and upon first glance at the article, I made the internal mention that required an almost complete rewrite. It was obviously full of BLP vios., featured numerous grammatical errors, and was almost entirely unsourced or sourced with mere external links. I initiated a complete rewrite over the period of a week (IIRC) and completely restructured the article to satisfy BLP requirements, and completed enough work that, while it failed GA nomination, I feel is substantially better than when I first began.

I am also proud of my contributions to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist, which came about of my involvement with WP:WQA. A user commented in regards to Nissan GT-R and the term supercar, both topics which I was wholly unfamiliar with. I mediated an extended discussion, which involved the disruption of numerous sock puppets, to which I later connected with the assistance of Daniel Case (talk · contribs). It's still an "open" case, although due to the diligence of editors in keeping a watch over his old haunts, we have limited his capacity to disrupt the project in the future.

There are probably countless other contributions which I can claim to be proud of, but those are the most recent or those that I can actually remember.

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: Conflicts? Yes. I tend to jump into the middle of discussions or conflicts, partially because I am active at WQA, ANI, 3O, MC, etc., but also because I enjoy the spirit of debate and resolve. Have they caused me stress? At times, yes.

Take for instance CompScientist (talk · contribs) and his varying socks. Being accused of various infractions, being slammed in discussion by what I thought were numerous separate accounts and individuals, and being lobbed left and right wasn't fun or constructive to discussion. Or Cculber007 (talk · contribs), where I was accused of discrimination on the basis that he was deaf. I noted that he had a long-term pattern of editing abuse and legal threats, and has had a series of blocks. I was an uninvolved editor in the whole deal, coming from a WQA report, and only escalated it to ANI after receiving several e-mails that threatened to have me blocked and removed from MC. I handled most of the dispute via e-mail and while the offending editor never recused his comments or edits, he has scaled back his edits and has become much less disruptive/incivil.

I was also accused of external link discrimination by Carl Rogers. Almost comical, he still trolls through my posts at various newsgroups to this day and occasionally includes the case in discussion.

I've dealt with it as amicably as possible. That's not to say that I wasn't a pain-in-the-rear long ago about it though, and two that I should mention involve citation templates which I completely blew out of proportion (I apologized for the incident) and for being overzealous at an AFD.

I've kept a short log, with a description of some of the incidents, at User:Seicer/Open. I believe that every editor and administrator should be held accountable for their prior actions, and should be as forthcoming as much as possible in regards to incidents. Plus, it's good for me to look back on and point out mistakes or how I should have handled a situation differently. Reviewing my old cases and being involved in various disputes has made me deal with conflicts in a vastly different manner than say... a year ago. You still learn how to deal with conflicts all the time, and it's something that you cannot fully learn or experience as each case is specific and rubber-stamping a resolution is not always the method that produces the best result. However, I primarily go with the dispute resolution process if extended discussions or private e-mails fail to produce an agreeable result. As for obvious vandals, which I hold a zero-tolerance policy towards, it includes warnings and DR, AIV, ANI or 3RR (depending on the case). I'm quite familiar with all four and participate in discussions regularly across the board.

Optional Question from User:Ronnotel

4. A user complains that a link to an off-wiki blog post has been posted as part of a dispute. The off-wiki material was posted under a different user ID. What actions do you take and why?

A: Sorry, I completely scrolled over this! I'm not wholly sure what you mean by a user complaining about a link to a blog.

• If a user repeatedly links to a off-wiki blog in an article, then the corrective action should be four warnings, followed by a 24h block if there is no response or if the user continues to persist. If the user returns with different aliases and socks, then the site is a candidate for blacklisting. It's a very similar situation to what I had to deal with today actually.
• Another alternate could be investigating if the alternate user ID is a sock of the original account. If it is just link spam, I do not believe that it is wholly necessary to go through the work to do this, and could defer to the first response instead. If it is long-term through multiple accounts, that's a different story.

Optional question from User:Stifle

5. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. To be honest, images are really not foray. I often bumble around uploading my images or images from FU sources! But after reviewing FU, I believe the following circumstances would justify using a non-free photograph of a living individual --

1. An image whose subject is not at or does not illustrate a war scene, unless it achieved iconic status.

2. An image that is not from a press agency, such as the Associated Press, unless it is the subject itself. This does not include photos that have reverted into pubilc domain.

3. Baseball cards != not FU.

4. An image that appears on a magazine cover to simply illustrate an article is not acceptable.

5. If the orgin of the image is known.

6. A low-resolution image if there are no free, replaceable images. I used this criteria at Bernie Ward, given that images of Mr. Ward were not available via other sources and that it had been previously published in numerous sources. It was also of very low resolution (barely passable).

7. An image of a person that is alive if a new, free replacement is possible, and would satisfy the requirements of that a commercial image. seicer | talk | contribs 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Acalamari

6. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BritandBeyonce, you opposed the candidate, which is fine, but part of your reason for opposing was that the candidate's edit count was "a tad too low" (it was 6,000 at the time of that RfA). Can you explain why you think that 6,000 edits is too low for someone to be an admin? How many edits do you think someone must have? Acalamari 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A. There was more to my opposing comment than an edit count. For instance, the user had relatively few edits outside of mainspace, and I feel that an administrator should feel comfortable posting or replying to topics at various noticeboards or elsewhere outside of mainspace in order to get a good representative of just how terse or awful things can become. I wanted to see the user represent himself more broadly to be short (almost duplicating the comment below). His short responses was also a part of my decision to oppose, and I was expecting to hear a little more detail on how he would use the tools and in prior conflicts specifically. I would check up on the editor to see how he is doing, but I'm not seeing a user...?

He's now Efe (talk · contribs). Please comment on said admin suitability. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. After reviewing his edits, he has significantly contributed to 7 good articles and has created 1 good article, which shows that he is not only an experienced editor, but is willing to put forth the effort to significantly improve articles to what is arguably a high standard. His mainspace edits tend to revolve around music, and he has significant contributions in a field of Wikipedia that I find is often lacking not only in sources, but notability. I note his positive contributions to WP:MCQ, and of course, WP:GAN and WP:FAC, but I would like to see further contributions outside of his comfort zone, not only to provide some variety, but to give him experience in terse situations. He is a great editor, and I am only seeing positive contributions from this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In addendum, I don't have a set minimum number of edits a user must have to become an administrator. If a person has satisfied general RfA requirements, and has sufficiently edited outside the mainspace and has interacted with other users, and has provided sufficient answers to the questions to the best of their ability, then I am satisfied. The quantity of edits does not necessairly reflect quality of edits. seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

7. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soxred93, you opposed the candidate purely on the basis that they didn't have enough edits. Can you please explain why you think someone's edit count is important? Acalamari 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Sure. I felt that by having only 1,773 edits at the time, he had not well represented himself at the various noticeboards or non-mainspace pages. I had checked his edit count via Kate's counter beforehand, and while I was impressed with the quality of his edits, I wanted to see the editor represent himself more broadly. Experience comes with having to deal with all sorts of editors, which comes along with time, and I felt that it was just not at the right moment. I decided to check on his edits today and I see that he is making great progress, with a fantastic editing speed and history, and with a more broad range of non-mainspace edits. I see no reason why he cannot be an administrator in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from Peter St.John

8. In light of the objection, among some of the "oppose" comments, that you are "anti-science": could you give two examples from the general category of "pseudoscience" (that is, stuff that gets labelled that way) which (one) should be rejected as bad science (e.g. Flat Earth) and (the other) that should be adopted as (new, developing) science (e.g. General Relativity, which seemed like pseudoscience to alot of people at the time it was announced)? More specifically, two articles from the general category, which should be treated differently on the basis of (scientific) truth vs (mere) superstition or quackery. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A: I would like to recuse myself from question 8 on the basis that it may bias or influence my work as Mediator at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from Baegis

9. Could you please explain WP:NPOV, specifically how it relates to the coverage of fringe subjects? As this is now becoming a large issue on scientific articles, I believe it is important that new administrators have a very clear understanding of the policy so that they may be better able to weigh in on tough decisions. Feel free to refer to other policies or examples, but if you do, please give some explanation for how it (the other policy or example) applies. Cheers! Baegis (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A: I would like to recuse myself from question 9 on the basis that it may bias or influence my work as Mediator at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Seicer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Seicer: Seicer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Seicer before commenting.

Discussion

• There seems to have been some canvassing going on here [1]. I haven't got time to look into it and have already cast an opinion but someone needs to look a bit closer at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I listed this under Netkinetic (talk · contribs)'s opposing comment below: [2] [3] [4] [5]. The warnings on his user talk page regarding this were blanked. seicer | talk | contribs 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer, this is your RFA, not ANI. As following the link, I get to know that you violated 3RR and blocked by Spartaz for edit warring. I'm more concern about how you behave if you pass this.--Appletrees (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• And the blocking admin voted for support below. While this is not ANI, votestacking is still serious and the user was warned for such behaviour. Sorry if you do not feel the same way. seicer | talk | contribs 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I respect Spartaz much but people can have different opinion on the same issue. I don't agree with the way of Netkinetic doing here, however, I'm more concerned about how you handle with people who disagree with you. Your posting the links looks like a seal from retaliation: how absurd the person is. You also bullied instead of jumping in discussion on Korean cuisine two months ago. I don't think you've been changed a bit.--Appletrees (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response(s) to Seicer's answer to question 8:

I have moved this section out of the Q&A section. It his inappropriate for users to jump in and make comments, especially comments like this, even if it is later refactored. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea. How about recusing yourself from your Mediator role, and answer this question, since your role as an Admin trumps your role as a Mediator. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Watch yourself. These comments are way out of line here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That he is anti-science? OK, I changed it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always found the quickest way to finger a kook is to observe the methods he employs. Ronnotel (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that first, I stand by my question (8) as fair and pertinent; second, that we might hope any discussion of it avoid ad hominem rhetoric; and last, that Seicer has a point, answering the question could reasonably be expected to complicate moderation at Cold Fusion. It's unfortunate that politics and personalities impede the discussion, but they surely do, so often. Pete St.John (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Would be a fantastic administrator. Willing to deal with difficult inter-personal disputes and has shown a great ability in resolving them. Experience with mainspace disputes via mediation, no evidence to suggest he won't know how to use the administrator tools in this respect if he gets them. Stable user who can take on criticism and learn from his experiences. Kind, friendly and trustworthy user. Strong support. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as nom - Best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Interacted with this editor for over 2 years - a great editor, professional, knowledgable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
4. —Dark ^(talk) 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Per previous interactions. John Reaves 06:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - of course! - Alison ^❤ 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - experienced and skilled with resolving conflicts, disputes, etc. Highly mopworthy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Spebi 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Oh wow...I was amazed to see this considering what I've seen from this user, especially around MedCom. Very, very impressive, and I'm sure he'll go far. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Your answers were too long to read so I'll just take Ryan's word for it ;) --Stephen 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Jmlk17 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Superb track record - extremely impressed. Will make a trustworthy admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Not one yet? Make it so! Majorly (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Aye Nick (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Answer to Q5 is confused, and mostly wrong. Addhoc (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

17. Yup! RT | Talk 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support great contributions! Will use the mop well. Spencer^T♦C 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Already has experience in dispute resolution. Good luck. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Will not abuse thee tools. Good luck. I also hope you learned from breaking the 3RR rule back in September. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Good experience in dispute resolution, will serve him well on his journey with the mop. Twenty Years 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - With all the DR experience under the belt, I think Seicer will make an excellent admin. —Travis^talk 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - Yes, quite clearly ready for the mop. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety ^talk 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support I did an editor review for him last year. He's a good writer and a good communicator. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Resolution of disputes and all the other contributions Seicer has done are simply outstanding. I hopefully recognised this when I added my opinion to his request to be a mediator a few weeks back. Sincerely the strongest support in a long time. Rudget. 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Very civil and productive editor. You'll make a great addition to the janitors! Icestorm815 • Talk 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Seems good to me! Good luck! A man of honour (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Enthusiastic Support I like what I see! Mr Senseless (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. Persistently good contributions (along with others from the Louisville project), and knowledgeable in policy. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
33. I have had the pleasure of working with Seicer through Mediation, and his calm, collected outlook and kindly nature are an asset to the project. Seicer has experience in administrator-related areas, including participation in heated discussions (through Requests for Mediation) and contributions to counter-vandalism activities. He is technically adept, and would be able to comfortably adjust to the additional set of tool the sysop. flag offers. His contributions clearly portray his value to Wikipedia as a whole, and I am confident the project would be better off with Seicer as an administrator. For these reasons, as well as his general common sense and high levels of clue, I am pleased to support his nomination. Best of luck! AGK (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    As something of a post script, I am aware of the 3RR violation. However, I am absolutely confident that this is completely in the past, and I trust Seicer to all ends. I no longer consider it an issue that would give me any reason to doubt his ability to function as an administrator. AGK (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

34. Support -very useful and prolific editor, appears to have learned from mistakes. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Prolific user, would be very useful admin. - Darwinek (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
36. yup - all the best ^Khukri 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
37. See that yup and raise FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - looks like he'll make a good administrator.   jj137 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support excellent editor, knows policy, no problems here at all. Black Kite 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Sure, seen Seicer around, no qualms with him having the mop --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Strong support I do not think I have ever seen such a Platonian idea of an admin. He has a lot of experience with discussions and mediation as well as some of the necessary article-building skills. He would definitely make a great admin. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - Shudde ^talk 03:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Looks good. He was blocked for a violation of the 3RR rule on September 20, 2007. However, anyone can make such mistakes. I hope he will do a great job as an admin. Good luck! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Good at dispute resolution, and has experience at WP:WQA. He has my sympathy for taking on the Cold fusion mediation; I guess he wanted the ultimate test of his conflict-resolution skills. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, great editor, great mediator, well versed in policy. No reservations here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Excellent, level-headed, meta-involved editor. What more can I say? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support. One of the best and level editors I've ever witnessed. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Support, meets my criteria and knows about dispute resolution. Good luck with the tools! Chetblong^{T C} 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
50. STACKS ON!!!! Sure, give this man a mop. --rm 'w avu 06:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. His watchlist and mine have overlapped in the past, he's handled difficult/frustrating situations very well, including repeated blanking of a talk page and its archive. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support As the blocking admin I should record that everything I have seen of this user since then has been good and I'm sure they will make a great admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - Absolutely no Problems. Keep up the good work. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Yup. Because he's from Kentucky, which so graciously chased away their coach and sent him to where he belongs. And because he's a good editor. Yeah, that's it, because he's a good editor. *clinks glasses* Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
55. I agree and from this notable resume i think he would be a fantastic administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahman15 (talk • contribs)
56. Yes definitely nothing but good. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
57. ... He gives long, complicated, quality-and-quantity answers to questions. Go ahead. F-L-c 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - I think the user'll make a great admin. Controlled, concise and colourful (Points for alliterative support)! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Why does it take the longest to get to the best? :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
60. Strong Support I think he has much experience is willing to deal with all the problems people can cause on Wikipedia. I hope too see him as an administrator sometime soon! -- Carerra ^{"I help newcomers!} 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
62. Support: Excellent candidate. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
63. Support an outstanding fellow WP:WQA veteran (although I'm around there even less than him these days). Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support, an excellent candidate, who I'm sure will do well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
65. Support Has over 5000 mainspace edits and track is very good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
66. Support only seen good from this editor. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - he's not already? Will ^(talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Support excellent candidate, good answers to questions, long history of good contributions. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Very good candidate. CIreland (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Glad to work with Seicer, who has been a pro, on some contentious material today. JNW (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
71. I've seen you around, and, I can't see a reason that would make me believe that I wouldn't be able to trust you with the extra buttons. Best of luck, SQL^{Query me!} 07:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Impressive. :) GlassCobra 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    Support per nom, impressive work too. A man of honour (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    See 30th support. Rudget. 14:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

73. SupportInteractiosn with user have all been positive. Has my vote!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okay311 (talk • contribs) — Okay311 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    What interaction? Your contributions consists of creating a page to nominate yourself as an administrator as the first order of business?Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

74. Support, this should be a good admin. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
75. Support we're all only human, and this particular user has not made many mistakes, and definitely none disqualifying for the function, while on many occasions has proved being worthy the buttons. Pundit|utter 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
76. Support CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
77. Endorse request. Jehochman ^Talk 11:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
78. Support. Careful, clear, unafraid, and usually right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
79. Support. Showed administrative mettle in handling of CompScientist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
80. Support No doubt in my mind he should be a admin. --Pookeo9 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
81. Support I'm a little shocked this has not happened before. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
82. Support Someone who is easy to talk to and work with and has shown great abilities at editing and mediation. I have no hesitation of giving my support, Seddon69 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
83. Support Level headed, balanced editor. Good luck. Anthon01 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
84. Support. Good man. Just remember when taking admin actions that the wiki is deep and broad and almost never what it seems. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Balanced, level-headed and objective editor.DanielEng (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    So you said at no. 67. Bencherlite^Talk 02:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

86. Answers to my questions were satisfactory. Acalamari 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
87. Support Past interactions have given me the impression of quality admin material. —Kurykh 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
88. Support, seems like an excellent candidate with a great editing history, good answers. Dreadstar † 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
89. Support No qualms here. нмŵוτнτ 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
90. Support will do just fine. Captain panda 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
91. I admire the way this user handles disputes. Other than that, there's some good article writing with the dispute resolution, and I will trust that this user will continue to do the awesome work he already does. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (GMT)
92. Based on his involvement with Mediation and his answers above, he's got the background to warrent my Support  — master son^{T - C} 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
93. Support The Mediation background and cool attention to policy seems likely to help calmly & neutrally unwind various tarpits of exclaimed dogma and POV.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
94. Support Good work at WQA. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
95. Support Future Admin. SexySeaShark 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
96. Support JASpencer (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
97. Support His background and his experience on Wikipedia makes me believe he will be a great admin. DanTheMan474 (talk) DanTheMan474 (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
98. Support! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
99. WP:100 Support. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Note: Apparently this will be the 100th RFA to be supported 100+ times. Congratulations, it's well earned. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

100. Support Breaking the 100-boundary. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
101. Support this editor, good recommendations above. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
102. Support – One of many, who have had the opportunity to be involved with articles that Seicer participated in. Even had differences in opinion on Afd and at all times found him to be civil – fair minded and respectful to all sides. Will make an excellent administrator. Shoessss |  Chat  23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
103. Support – I've seen him to good work at WP:WQA and I think he'll make a good admin. Dlabtot (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
104. Support I trust this editor with the mop. One of the oppose arguments below (regarding Seicer's perceived personal POVs) seems to ignore the fact that the admin tools are solely intended to enforce process, not to influence content. That said, I agree with some of the oppose voters that we have a problem when it comes to protecting the neutrality of the encyclopedia against fringe editors who have learned to behave civilly, at least superficially. But it won't be solved by denying Seicer the admin bit, or made worse by awarding it. Avb 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry, but after reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion I must oppose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Hello Raymond, what's exactly wrong with it? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   The only prior dealing I had with Raymond was warning him for breach of civility on 12 January 2008. Just out of curiousity, I'd like to know what I have done wrong with mediation as well... ? seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   The warning you've just linked to was for Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs), and I see no interaction with you and Raymond on his talk page in 2008. Raymonds actually a very civil chap so I think you're mistaken about having to warn him about civility. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Oops. Sorry about the bad link. I can't find any prior interactions, but would like to know at least a more detailed response :O) seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's more a gut feeling than something specific that I can point to, which is why I didn't give diffs and such. I just have an uneasy sense that you may overemphasize process and civility at the expense of content. My impression may also be colored by your work with WP:WQA, a forum that I feel does more harm than good. I'm sorry to oppose because I think your intentions are good and I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. (And no, I don't think we've interacted directly that I can recall.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   You're opposing based on a "gut feeling" with the admission that you cannot provide tangible links and diffs? Doesn't exactly seem like a good faith oppose at all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   "Good faith, or in Latin bona fide, is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct, even if the conviction is objectively unfounded" (emphases changed a bit). Opposing due to one's own conviction - even if on "gut feeling", without an objective foundation or, in this case, without links or diffs - seems to me to be the very definition of "good faith", at least according to our article. --Iamunknown 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Opposing per WP:GUT, if you will, has been specifically stated to be perfectly OK after the Archtransit debacle. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Please note the following recent instances wherein this candidate seems to deviate from the mediator of conflicts template: [6] and[7]. Under the page for "resolving disputes" linked to the primary mediation page, it suggests "Focus on content, not on the other editor" and "stay cool". Certainly a mediator (and an administrator) should practice both traits? At least during his initial interaction with an editor, regardless of whether he may or may not feel the editor deserves it? Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Opposition comment stems from SSP case, ANI case (and now) MC. seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Regardless, it is how you handle each of these that determines how you will broker difficult situations. Placing qualifiers on one's actions only justifies what is inherant within ourselves.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

   Per your contribution history ([8] [9] [10] [11]), you do realize that votestacking is frowned upon, especially at RfA? These are cases from September of 2007. seicer | talk | contribs 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   And per your initial comments directed towards me (see above for links), you do realize that [WP:CIV| uncivility is frowned upon], and you haven't even begun to address how a "mediator" opens dialogue with an editor whom he's never dealt with before (as at the example you cited) in such a confrontational method. It is this hot/cold reaction you display to certain editors which is at question, and it would be nice if you would address how precisely your conduct has changed from your past transgressions? Reason being, we need to know the admin that is appointed is emotionally stable and rationale enough even if he doesn't not feel his opposition are displaying the same qualities. Remember, this is addressing your qualifications, not redirecting recriminations at other editors. It is your RfA, not ours. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I don't agree with the claim that Seicer behaves in neural point of view. When the dog meat section of Korean cuisine article was in a big dispute about two month ago, I thought he was an admin because he acted like that. Aside from the dog meat dispute, several editors had conflicts over the placement of the cuisine template and MoS guideline, but he reverted to the unsettled revision without consensus or discussion. I visited his talk page, he did seem to have similar problems with several visitors. I believe that aministrators should be credible and a good model to editors, but I doubt Seicer could keep objectivity when his thought conflicts with others.--Appletrees (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   Note for example Seicer's comment while removing another editors comment on the Korean cuisine article above [[12] using a term that flies in the face of WP:AGF and WP:CIV "rem. wholly unconstructive and trollish comment per WP:TALK". No where in WP:TALK does it promote use of such uncivil comments as those issuing forth from Seicer.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose. With regrets. This user made some very rude comments to me in an e-mail regarding the ongoing mediation on cold fusion. I was concerned (and still am concerned) that he was being way too accommodating of the fringe POV in the mediation. Here's a taste of his response to me: "I have not taken your comments into consideration, and will not continue to do so among advice from other administrators and editors, and because of the Arbrition decision and discussion." The sad thing is that I have also had some very productive conversations with this user over e-mail. It's almost like this particular user has a tendency to "flash" when high drama or heavy conflict comes. I have yet to receive an apology for this outrageous behavior. Believe you me, I know what that's like to feel that upset and want to lash out, but that's why I'm not going to become an administrator any time soon. I think this user needs to learn to control his temper. If as a mediator he cannot control it, what's to make us think he'll control it as an admin? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   In other words, you wish that I not take the opposing parties interest and comments into consideration at mediation? I've taken your comments into consideration, but when you begin edit warring at mediation and you are thereby blocked for it at WP:AE for just that and numerous other infractions, then your editing history becomes in question. As demonstrated today at WP:AE where you were blocked for 96h, your prior editing history was taken into consideration over some uncivil comments. I'm not dragging this out further at my RfA; it's left best at AE, where the case is (still) open for comment. seicer | talk | contribs 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   No. In other words, your reaction here (as elswehere) is exceedingly critical rather than constructive. Recall, if you will, this is an RfA about you...not about other editor's indiscretions. Lodging personal attacks towards other editors that give fair criticisms only highlights why your consideration as an admin at this juncture is a bit premature. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   It is not plain to me that Seicer's response above was rude; particulary in contrast to the comment, which was an unreferencable gloss to offline material, from someone whose elbows are well-known to cast long shadows (cf numerous actions, of which the recent block is an example. Not unlike my own recent block, perhaps). I would prefer, myself, if we were specific and pointed in criticizing Seicer. Please point to anti-science edits, or uncivil remarks. Just glossing him as anti-science, or as uncivil, and then referencing each other (e.g. comments below referencing the above). Where's the diffs? Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Poor answer to Q5: images from stock photo libraries and news agencies should never be used to depict living persons; non-free images of living persons are not permitted except in exceptional circumstances, which your example article doesn't have; your seventh point doesn't make sense. Also, an exceedingly hostile response to SA above. east.718 at 00:08, February 25, 2008

   Actually, there are exceptions per WP:FU. A photograph from a press agency, such as the Associated Press, can be used if it is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and applies mostly to contemporary press photographs, not necessarily to historical archives of said press photographs, some of which are in public domain. I noted nothing in regards to a living person, however, I would like clarification with a possible citation for further reading (for my own benefit). The only explicit mention of FU in regards to living persons is [13], which states it is "strongly discouraged" but not flat out "never." seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   Having been somewhat involved in the situation between Seicer and SA, I can tell you that Seicer has behaved with extreme civility throughout the episode. That private, cherry-picked and potentially out of context remarks were posted in such a forum is a remarkable violation of the privacy we would all expect in a similar situation. It's not surprising that Seicer is not over-joyed. I commend him for his professionalism, which has been flagrantly displayed in all my interactions with him. Ronnotel (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   And posting private conversations, and encouraging others to e-mail him for the sweet, juicy nectar is also against policy. It has been noted on SA's talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   WP:NFC has a bunch of good stuff to read, and press agency photos can be used for the purpose you described - but not solely to depict somebody. Regardless, this is a minor point of contention at best and your RFA will pass. Best of luck! east.718 at 01:32, February 25, 2008

   That's what I cited up there (FU == NFC), but worded the statement in reverse, that press agency photos cannot be used to depict somebody unless the photo itself is the source of comment. Thanks for the helpful comments, though. They are well received! seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

6. I hope the user does not take my opposition personally, but there are a number of concerns that would lead me to oppose any user seeking these tools. Kudos to anyone who addresses incivility in our community, I hope that s/he continues to do so. I noticed this user at WQA, and I thought they were an Admin. I made this assumption because the user has not denied it when others have made that same assumption. The editor also has a statement heading their talk page that might lead one to assume that this RFA had concluded, and that s/he was already a sysop. While that may be a reasonable prediction, it seems a little presumptuous. I am not quite sure what to make of the statement, that they [supporters] have a lot of vested interest in seeing me succeed as a potential administrator, but I find many of the statements made by the user to be slightly baffling. The answer to question 3 s/he says, but also because I enjoy the spirit of debate and resolve. If s/he means spirited debate, I am strongly opposed, wikipedia does not need it (I am, of course, in favour of the spirit of resolution). I see this ambiguity as a flaw in their approach, especially in dispute resolution, and that editors might misinterpret some statements. The lack of clarity in some of this users statements may not reduce disruption, or may increase it. The user maintains a 'humourous' link on their user page, User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel‎, which could inflame a situation they are trying to resolve. I took a good amount of time to assess this request, I hope the editor finds my comments useful in their new role. I will conclude with what I feel is my most pertinent point, the editor has not answered Q.1! Perhaps the editor has not asked themselves this question when they set out to acquire this 'status': how will the tools help me to do this work? My oppose is also based on this opinion: a greater proportion of mainspace edits is a better background for sysops than participation in DR forums. cygnis insignis 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
7. opppose I joined recently and don't know if allowed to vote (I followed the trail leading from ScienceApologists talk page). I don't know the background to most of the comments here, except I picked up that there may be issues of 'fringe science' subjects here. I've seen enough during my short period here to demonstrate this is a serious issue facing the encylopedia, and I'm concerned enough to register an oppose. Apologies if I am speaking out of turn. The Rationalist (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   comment Rationalist, we need to distinguish good editting from good physics. Articles like "cold fusion" are trivial to physicists but a complicated mess for public-policy: "free energy!!". So for a community-contributed article to survive, good editors are needed to mediate between physicists and everybody else; which includes not just cranks and naifs, but concerned citizens who just don't know that much physics, which has included some competent chemists who got fooled badly. Fringe Science is indeed a problem, but we need cooperation and patience from all editors (such as Seicer) since we can't merely impose the truth with Authority (much as we might like to). Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   We don't need to trot out the tired old "impose the truth with Authority" argument. All we need is for existing policies like WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and so on to get even a fraction of the emphasis we put on WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, but please point to specifics. All I saw on the link you gave at the top of this "oppose" section was a huge ugly ongoing debate at a contentious site, and Seicer does not appear to be one of the (perhaps justly) angry physcists. The mere fact that he has tried to mediate on a "fringe science" site is not justification for opposing his nomination, as Rationalist seemed to say. If he makes bad edits in contravention of any of those policies you mention, please specify them. Pete St.John (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   (ammendation) I just caught up to the "gut feeling" thing above. I'll just say that my own gut feeling is that Seicer has persistently tried to be fair. Alot of the people who fell hard for cold fusion had earned PhDs from accreditted universities. It's not only morons who are confused about it and lot's of people have something to say about it, for many reasons. We have to cope with that. Pete St.John (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   I have now noticed this person's conduct in the case of ScienceApologist. Alter that to strongly oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rationalist (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Wiki has far too many admins who behave in a similar manner to this particular editor. With that said I would probably not vote in this particular situation except for the fact I am very concerned about how he or she is handling his or herself in the case of User Science Apologist. : Albion moonlight (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose. Another anti-science Admin candidate who couches his POV in the old canard of civility etc. Policies like WP:VERIFY, and WP:WEIGHT are not subject to "negotiation." And if this candidate is attacking merits an oppose from Raymond Arritt, one of the best science writers we have, I know we have a problem Houston. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

   OM, I don't construe anything he's written as an attack. He's not taken any of the opposes personally, and I commend him for that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

   I dislike candidates who are compelled to whine to each editor who opposes them. But remember, he's anti-science, and that's enough for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

10. oppose per Raymond arritt. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above.--Filll (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
12. oppose per Raymond arritt. I happen to support substance over style. While "civility" has become the proper "style" for WP (and an overused trope), substance has been left behind as a merely ancillary concern. Quite amazing when one considers that academe has been the forum for many a hot-headed dispute over time. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    I support substance over style too. I suggest that Jim, Orange, Raymond, or anyone point out specific anti-science edits made by Seicer. Really. I'll oppose him too, if he's anti-science, and not merely pro-consensus. Pete St.John (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Pro-consensus is a fun term that you utilize, but it disguises a certain anti-science POV shown with respect to Cold-fusion, about which there are no reliable sources supporting it. That's why admins should have a science background for science articles, because consensus does not exist in a real world of science. If 10 editors say that the earth was created in 7 days by aliens and another 10 editors say it developed over 4 billion years, is there really a consensus? No. Oh, BTW, thanks so much for removing my request to answer my question, because you know, it's so irrelevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Wait, are you saying that because there's no hard evidence to support Cold fusion that the article shouldn't exist, or should be stubbed because of the reliability of the claims? By that same theology behind your science, evolution ought to be stubbed, since it's full of unverifiable cruft also (I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I realise that being a YEC on wikipedia is a losing battle). --rm 'w avu 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Rm, Cold Fusion is a famous blunder. Famous (in the sciences) because several competent chemists working in different countries made the same mistake and got lots of optimistic publicity from the non-technical press, only to be repeated a few years later at some other country. So OrangeMarlin and I agree about the content of the article. We disagree so much about consensus that he labelled me as Anti-Science above ("Pro-consensus...disguises a certain anti-science POV..."). I want to bring non-scientists into the fold, not alienate them; I want Science to always be open to questioning, in stark contrast to anti-scientific dogma. My point with respect to this candidacy is that failing to be anti-anti-science (like me, who am pro-science, or Seicer, who may be science-neutral) is getting labelled here as anti-science. I believe the Wiki, as a secular encyclopedia, should be pro-science; but it certainly need not be anti-anti-science, it need not be hostile, and it can certainly and necessarily welcome nontechnical editors. Pete St.John (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    So can we take it that your views are anti-anti-anti-science? (My brain hurts.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

13. oppose - answers are unconvincing and somewhat contradictory when when comparing against edit history and comments in AN/I. Shot info (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
14. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Any reason why? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Now that's an insulting question, Ryan. I was under the impression that after all these years at Wikipedia my general reputation precluded anyone accusing me of doing things without reason, on a whim, as it were. Apparently I was in error, as you seem to be entertaining the possibility that I have no reason at all for this action. Either my reputation or your perception is more flawed than I had thought. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oh no, it was nothing like that - It just might help Seicer in the future if you could elaborate and tell him what you believe his faults are so he can work on them. Should this RfA pass or not, it would be good to have some constructive critisism for him to work from - it can only make him better. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose per the obvious named reasons, probably much like KillerChihuahua above. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:45, February 27, 2008
16. Strong Oppose - per refusal to answer question and other assorted actions. Baegis (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    What questions has he refused to answer? He asked that we recuse him from answer a question that regards an open mediation case, which as far as I can tell, is not within the realm of administrative duty (Give examples of pseudoscience and decide which are good science and which are "quackery"? Is that really up to an admin, or a mediator for that matter?) The only unanswered question is the most recent one, which he has given no indication of not answering. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I cited my reason in my edit summary upon my reason given for Q8, but to reiterate, I am recusing myself from answering the question due to a current conflict of interest. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I am referring to the question that I asked. You were able to make dozens of other edits and update the tally on your own RfA page but did not take the time to answer my question. Baegis (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    So, instead of taking the time to compose an answer to a difficult question which will assuredly arise during your term as an administrator, you decided to recuse yourself. Twice. It sincerely makes me question your ability for the job if you just pass on all difficult decisions. I hope this will not be a common occurrence. NPOV is a fundamental policy for the encyclopedia and your inability to answer the question shows me that you do not understand how to apply it and will be a liability as an administrator. Bully for you. Baegis (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I thought questions were optional?? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I am also disappointed that Seicer chose not to answer Baegis' question 9 (as well as my previlous 8); however, while we may not all be equally satisfied by the explanation given (conflict of interest regarding ongoing mediation), it does not follow that he is unable to answer the question or that he does not understand how to apply it. By not answering the question, he loses that opportunity to show he does understand it and can apply it. Successful mediation of Cold Fusion would (eventually) be a better proof. Pete St.John (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    NPOV is a policy that governs every single article on this project. It's proper implementation would actually further the progress of the Cold Fusion mediation, not to mention in nearly all other places on this encyclopedia. By begging off answering a fundamental question, one that lies at the very crux of this collaboration, this candidate shows how ill prepared he is for this position. He could always prove me incorrect, but he is starting off way behind. Baegis (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Just because he hasn't answered your (late-coming) question yet doesn't mean he's not going to, but it's interesting to me that you make it so clear that this important question to an administrator regarding his RfA is really a little prod leading back to an ongoing dispute in which he is the mediator - something that should not be hashed out here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    He already "recused" himself from answering my question. And I am not even a party on the Cold Fusion nor have I ever made an edit to anything related to it. Check your facts. Instead of attacking the opposers, lets AGF. You aren't his defender. But this is completely off topic. It isn't about the mediation, it's about his RfA and not answering the question(s) posed with dubious reasoning. I stand by my vote and my statement. Baegis (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose Seicer's chiming-in in support of a particularly weak sock-puppetry accusation [14] against one of the parties ( ScienceApologist ) in a case on Cold fusion he was then mediating makes me suspect that his mediation was in fact very far from neutral. Cardamon (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Unless I'm reading the case wrong, the alleged sockpuppetry occurred at mediation. Are you saying that the mediator should not participate in a discussion that is obviously relevant to the mediation? Whose input would be better or more appropriate? --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    I think this is directing to the case where I was asked for my comment regarding SA at WP:AE regarding incivility and bad faith assumptions, where SA was being monitored for such under ArbCom's prior rulings. Part of my commentary led to a 96h block of SA, but because I requested in private discussion that the block be reduced, the block was refactored to 12h. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    No, as stated above the question was about the sockpuppetry case, here. (The sockpuppetry case was indeed quite flimsy; e.g., an example of common behavior supposedly tying the two users was "intense aversion to so-called pseudo-science.") Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed it seemed like those comments constituted nothing more than a fishing expedition and were very weak. Really a pathetic gesture. Still we should WP:AGF that his comments weren't meant in a derrogatory manner, as I'm sure he would of each of we, his fellow editors. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose per Raymond Arritt. We have concerns here about the cold fusion controversy and the alleged ScienceApologist sockies incident. I see some questions have remained unanswered. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - your answer to Q5 is confused, and mostly wrong. Addhoc (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   What's wrong with it? I don't know much about the topic myself. Thanks Pete St.John (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   A better answer would be to indicate that fair use images shouldn't be used in a living person biography, unless a free image is almost completely impossible, and by publishing the image, we won't compromise the person's right to privacy. Addhoc (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   OK. Incidentally, "not forray" probably is a typo for "not my forte". Pete St.John (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Those were taken straight from WP:FU, and I made it explicitly clear above in another reply that there are some very strict boundaries on when you can use a FU for a living person. In it, I stated that I made the statements in reverse of what was on FU, in that "press agency photos cannot be used to depict somebody unless the photo itself is the source of comment." I guess my original reply was pretty confusing and probably very hard to follow along. seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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.