Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Materialscientist
General user info
Username: Materialscientist
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Sep 15, 2008 08:25:56
Unique articles edited: 2,513
Average edits per page: 3.33
Total edits (including deleted): 8,369
Deleted edits: 109
Live edits: 8,260
Namespace totals
Article 5038 60.99%
Talk 700 8.47%
User 110 1.33%
User talk 594 7.19%
Wikipedia 352 4.26%
Wikipedia talk 86 1.04%
File 391 4.73%
Template 320 3.87%
Template talk 663 8.03%
Category 6 0.07%
Graph
Month counts
2008/09 187
2008/10 182
2008/11 19
2008/12 79
2009/01 230
2009/02 66
2009/03 106
2009/04 462
2009/05 832
2009/06 1360
2009/07 1346
2009/08 1416
2009/09 1078
2009/10 897
Logs
Pages moved: 31
Files uploaded: 337
Top edited articles
Article
* 97 - Synthetic_diamond
* 69 - Diamond
* 54 - Metamaterial
* 53 - Boron
* 50 - Zinc_oxide
* 37 - Material_properties_of_diamond
* 36 - Technetium
* 35 - Boron_nitride
* 34 - Carbon_nanotube
* 33 - Scientific_terminology
Talk
* 34 - Synthetic_diamond/FA1
* 23 - Snow/GA1
* 17 - Diamond
* 16 - Glass_transition
* 16 - Nikita_Zotov
* 15 - Metamaterial
* 15 - Negative_index_metamaterials
* 13 - Technetium
* 12 - Constant_k_filter/GA1
* 11 - Robert_C._Michelson
User
* 82 - Materialscientist
* 12 - Materialscientist/Awards
* 7 - Citation_bot/bugs
* 4 - Materialscientist/Sandbox
* 3 - Materialscientist/monobook.js
* 1 - Materialscientist/Sandbox2
* 1 - Dian_john1
User talk
* 41 - Ti-30X
* 32 - Logger9
* 28 - Stone
* 24 - Materialscientist
* 17 - Benjah-bmm27
* 11 - Mav
* 11 - NuclearWarfare
* 10 - Achim1999
* 9 - Smokefoot
* 8 - Spinningspark
Wikipedia
* 56 - Good_article_nominations
* 19 - Featured_article_review/Diamond/archive1
* 15 - Featured_article_candidates/Synthetic_diamond/arch...
* 15 - Featured_article_candidates/Synthetic_diamond/arch...
* 14 - Featured_article_candidates/Oxygen_toxicity/archiv...
* 14 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
* 13 - Sandbox
* 12 - Featured_article_review/Technetium/archive1
* 12 - Featured_article_candidates/Otomi_language/archive...
* 11 - Good_articles
Wikipedia talk
* 36 - WikiProject_Elements
* 17 - Did_you_know
* 9 - Good_article_nominations
* 8 - Featured_article_candidates
* 8 - WikiProject_Chemicals
* 1 - AutoWikiBrowser
* 1 - Good_articles
* 1 - Requests_for_adminship
* 1 - WikiProject_Geology
* 1 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
File
* 5 - SSPN41.PNG
* 4 - Si3N4rotor.jpg
* 4 - Stibiconite_structure.jpg
* 3 - Si3N4bearings.jpg
* 3 - GborXRD.JPG
* 3 - Alfaboron.jpg
* 3 - ZrI4structure.jpg
* 3 - Gd2O3structure.jpg
* 3 - 84244_2_patent4.jpg
* 3 - Constant_k_4.png
Template
* 9 - Infobox_boron
* 8 - Infobox_aluminium
* 7 - Infobox_carbon
* 6 - Infobox_oxygen
* 6 - Infobox_lanthanum
* 6 - Infobox_hydrogen
* 6 - Infobox_chromium
* 6 - Infobox_germanium
* 6 - Infobox_tin
* 5 - Infobox_nickel
Template talk
* 659 - Did_you_know
* 2 - Iodides
* 1 - Infobox_carbon
* 1 - Infobox_silicon
Category
* 3 - Physics_review_journals
* 1 - Electron_microscopy
* 1 - Singularitarianism
* 1 - Microscopy
Question re "Canvassing"
It seems that a source of opposition to this RfA is the canvassing by Materialscientist. Are the users he canvassed his allies or neutral users? It doesn't seem that it would be a big deal if it were the latter. Triplestop x3 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- In the "A note on canvassing" section, MS writes:
I know them merely as more experienced wikipedians than I, editors with their own strong judgment, and I do praise their critiqiue more than applause. I merely wanted to know what they (and others here) honestly think about me.
- GlassCobra 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- But why those editors? The answers given don't seem to explain the decision process or answer the concern. Certainly those aren't the only "more epxerienced" editors. I'm still left wondering and hoping for a clarification. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Simply because I knew they have sound and experienced judgment (3+ years on WP) from my past encounters. I'm not close with them, but have respect to them all, even though some were rather terse with me and sometimes even worse :-). The action was spontaneous. Luckily I've got to do something else and stopped at 13 :-). I would not mind at all inviting as many sound "3+ yearers" as possible, but that should never be said, as it is wrong, simply because of misinterpretation and confusion. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- But why those editors? The answers given don't seem to explain the decision process or answer the concern. Certainly those aren't the only "more epxerienced" editors. I'm still left wondering and hoping for a clarification. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Refactored discussion of canvassing
49. Support, but would suggest throwing out any supports entered by recipients of the canvassing. Bwrs (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's the rationale that counts, not the editor. And since RFA is not a vote, there's really no need to throw out any supports or opposes unless they are obviously made in bad faith. The closing 'crat can decide what matters and what doesn't. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- When I said “throw out” that was worded too strongly. If you count only those “supports” made by those who were not brought in via canvassing, and there is consensus to promote, then promote. If such consensus only appears if you include “supports” from those who were brought in, then use best judgment. I support because of the WP:GA work. Bwrs (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- As one of those who was 'canvassed', I take great offense with those comments. Why shouldn't my rationale be heard? Are you saying that I'm less worthy of being heard than anyone else? Or that I don't have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart? Or that my judgment is somehow clouded? MS getting the adminship the tools affects me more than it affects you. If he's bad at it, chances are that it will piss me off more than it will piss you off. I have first hand experience with MS, thus all that more likely to know if there was a problem in either behaviour or in judgment with MS. Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but it pisses me off when people who complain about 'canvassing' on philosophical grounds rather than on actual grounds. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for the suggestion that any vote should be “thrown out.” Such would not be tolerated in a real election. Bwrs (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for retracting the comments. No hard feelings. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for the suggestion that any vote should be “thrown out.” Such would not be tolerated in a real election. Bwrs (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- As one of those who was 'canvassed', I take great offense with those comments. Why shouldn't my rationale be heard? Are you saying that I'm less worthy of being heard than anyone else? Or that I don't have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart? Or that my judgment is somehow clouded? MS getting the adminship the tools affects me more than it affects you. If he's bad at it, chances are that it will piss me off more than it will piss you off. I have first hand experience with MS, thus all that more likely to know if there was a problem in either behaviour or in judgment with MS. Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but it pisses me off when people who complain about 'canvassing' on philosophical grounds rather than on actual grounds. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- When I said “throw out” that was worded too strongly. If you count only those “supports” made by those who were not brought in via canvassing, and there is consensus to promote, then promote. If such consensus only appears if you include “supports” from those who were brought in, then use best judgment. I support because of the WP:GA work. Bwrs (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)