Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Materialscientist


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

Materialscientist
(112/11/9); Ended 06:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) closed as successful by — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– For my fifth nomination, I would like to nominate Materialscientist for the mop.

I'll keep this short and sweet. Following a quick review of Materialscientist's credentials, I was very impressed. Having been with us since September 2008, MS is presently a rollbacker with 8,000+ edits, a healthy >60% of which are in the article space. If that's not enough, MS also has a PhD in physics. Did I mention that most of MS's edits are in the article space? I didn't mean that MS only does rollback and AWB edits, or just adding sources or making general fixes – no, MS is a brilliant writer. To date, MS has created 50 non-redirect articles, and has acquired 31 DYK's, 20 GA's and 7 FA's – including such basic, top-importance articles as Snow and Diamond. But what I find most striking is MS's DYK work, which includes over 650 edits to Template talk:Did you know, and 17 edits to WT:DYK.

MS is a real gem – civil, knowledgeable, experienced, and a talented writer and DYK reviewer. I hope you will agree with me that MS will make a fine administrator.  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs, review) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I state that my purpose is to improve WP and to serve it to the best of my ability. I accept this nomination and consider it as a unique possibility to talk to the community. Thus I welcome not only your questions, but also your feedback and advice on what and how can I do better. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I shall continue usual activities, learning the administrator functions and applying them only when absolutely necessary. Examples:
 * WP:RCP. Whereas in the past I was more concerned with protecting those ~1100 pages I watch, leaving user matters to admins, in the future, I shall pay more attention to guiding the users, understanding the reasons behind their actions, and blocking them when absolutely necessary.
 * WP:RFP. As to WP pages, the ability to move, move-protect and semiprotect them would be of great help.
 * WP:DYK is an hourly service which requires administrative access for its vital tasks. The project needs help, and I have some experience there. I am planning to gradually extend my regular DYK reviewing activities to helping DYK admins with the main page.
 * WP:AFD. With a necessary caution, I shall participate more actively in the article deletion and dispute resolution processes.
 * I am participating in several other projects (reviewing, nominating, helping newcomers, etc.) and I am flexible and open to suggestions, i.e. if the community feels I could help better in one or another way, I'm glad to discuss that.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Hm .. 4 of my 33 DYK nominations feature in the DYK hall of fame, with the average of 218600/32 = 6800 views per DYK day. On the other hand, diamond FA, which I rewrote and rescued at WP:FAR has 5000+ views every day .. I think I helped more by improving other 2500+ articles I edited.


 * 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: In general, I try to resolve peacefully every conflict. My RCP activity sometimes induces angry response though. Two cases were brought to ANI. One resulted in adoption of the nominator. Another, about 1/2 year ago, tested and taught me how to stand fiercest personal attacks and ended in harmony too. Since then, I have no concern regarding my piece of mind.


 * Additional optional question from Caspian blue
 * 4. What project are you active and what do you think of POV pushing between editors and involved admins' governance in science related topics which are frequently brought to WP:ARBCOM?
 * A: Scientifically, I am most active with WP:Elements, but I am also involved with WP:Chemistry and WP:Physics. The topic is sensitive and every case is different. Science disputes are specific by that the parties involved are usually competent and intelligent, but are often intolerant to those not accepting or even not understanding their views. On the one hand, WP does need professional writing, on the other, it should be neutral an stable. A respectable, calm and wise mediator is important in resolving serious disputes. If he/she is a scientist and administrator, this helps a lot. PS. As tedder reminded me below, having a community discussion is a great help too (the only problem is to find several individuals who understand a bit of that specific topic :-).


 * Additional optional question from Tedder
 * 5. Why do you prefer not to reply to comments on your userpage?
 * A: It just happened historically and remains as a habit - this way the correspondent doesn't have to watch my page. No hard line here. I reply to anonymous questions on my talk page.


 * Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
 * 6. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
 * A: (i) At the moment, I can't imagine a situation where I would need an alternate account. (ii) If I have to create such account, I would clearly identify its purpose and relation to my main account (i.e. the question doesn't apply). (iii) In general, I would be willing to share my personal information with bureaucrats when necessary.


 * Additional optional questions from Epeefleche
 * 7. Hypo:  An article passes AfD as "no consensus".  As a result, the article is kept.  The nom who was not successful then puts a notability tag on the article.  An editor who felt that the article was notable, and had voted "keep", objects, feeling it scars the article without need, putting a Scarlet Letter on it when there was not consensus that it did in fact lack notability.  How would you handle the issue?
 * A: Depends on situation. General answer: invite those editors and members of the corresponding project into a public discussion on the talk page of that article.


 * Additional optional questions from User:Smokefoot
 * 8. Three questions:
 * a) I would like to hear some clarification/explanation of the connection to User:NIMSoffice - what was the reason for your change in the username? Were there diputes involving that username?
 * b)I think that you were involved in a contentious process over some articles on boron, where the actual author of the scientific paper inserted himself. Your brief account might be revealing of your approach.
 * c) When you were user: NIMSoffice, you favored inserting many references to the primary literature (Appl. Phys Lett, J. Cryst. Growth, PRL, etc). What is your view on the advisability of specialized primary references for an encyclopedia?  Under what circumstances would you delete references from articles?
 * a) As promised, here is my honest answer: I started editing with the only purpose to create a few pages (such as National Institute for Materials Science and International Center for Materials Nanoarchitectonics) on that non-profit scientific institution in Japan, which I belonged to. I wanted to assure that the information I provide is reliable, and no SPAM, or alike will come from the account, thus I named it NIMSoffice and posted on the userpage a note revealing that I am associated with NIMS. The note was misleading: it used "we" suggesting a group behind the account, and I removed it after. At no time multiple use of the account was intended or practiced. (Those who doubt and can check please do). Later, I was stalked by an editor, on WP and in real life, who used this information; also, an administrator politely suggested that NIMSoffice might sound misleading, which resulted in renaming to Materialscientist. Very soon, I became a dedicated WP fan, and fair and square WP contributor in all possible areas (my DYKs can give an idea on my current scope - I actually don't write much on science anymore :-)
 * b) I shall try to keep this short, to spare ugly and complex details (all facts are available, preferably on request on a separate page, some are OTRS related and will be provided only with certain discretion). I updated boron with a published article on its new phase. An editor X started an angry discussion accusing the real-life authors of that article of stealing his discovery. In my trying to understand his story, which I truly sympathized first, I started questioning some inconsistencies, that gradually infuriated the opponent. He launched several alternate accounts to promote his point. I mentioned to him that this is not the right way to spread his message and later launched a multiple sockpuppet case, which was supported. This made me a public enemy of X. He started editing under his real name, tried his best to have my account blocked and me fired from my job (no joking). This activity resulted in blocking his account. In an unblock discussion, we came to a peaceful solution, with X abandoning personal wars and agreeing with my edits. Later I successfully brought boron to GA status.
 * c) Is one of the reasons we need more knowledgeable people with healthy judgment. Every case is special, and in my first months I did not understand subtleties. As a scientist, I used to work with primary sources only, reading and assessing every one of them. As a wikipedian, I now use secondary sources (books and reviews) instead, wherever possible, trying to question every new "discovery" (which are proved "questionable" so often later!), but still exercising a healthy criticism of every source I meet. (Note, this is a concrete answer to the specific question by Smokefoot - off course, this all comes on top of basic WP:RS, WP:SPAM, etc. policies)


 * Additional optional questions from Triplestop
 * 9. Suppose an editor writes an article on an organization they are affiliated with, with a username that contains the name of the organization. How should the editor be dealt with (if at all)?
 * A: Depends. General answer: suspect COI, but stay polite. Read the article for neutrality and act correspondingly. Check how strong is the confusion (name examples: Who and WorldHealthOrganisation). A polite contact with the author suggesting a possible name change is considered.


 * Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
 * 10. What process did you use in deciding who to "invite" to participate in your RFA? I notice that most of the persons to receive such notices are editors of scientific articles, and a number of them are highly experienced administrators.
 * A: As I mentioned below, I wanted to know what people honestly think about me, what did I do wrong, and what and how can I do better. I know the invited editors as people more experienced than I, who by all means have their own strong judgment on what to write and how to act.


 * Additional question from Leaky Caldron
 * 11. Did you read WP:Guide to requests for adminship before your nomination?
 * A: As I promised to stay honest, yes I did, but without spending much time on every sentence.


 * Additional question from ChildofMidnight
 * 12. Can you answer the concerns expressed over canvassing and state unequivocally any and all other accounts you have edited with on Wikipedia?
 * A: (i) Please see Q10 and section below (ii) I declare that I used only one account. It was named NIMSoffice and renamed into Materialscientist. I made two minor edits as NIMSoffice thereafter: one occurred during the renaming, another was an attempt to resolve a problem with Commons not supporting my account renaming. To the best of my knowledge, no-one else used my account.


 * Additional optional question from John
 * 13. You state that you have a qualification in Physics. As an admin, would you therefore be more or less inclined to intervene in a dispute on a science-related topic such as Global warming? Please justify your answer. --John (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Got a break and will try to answer, those several questions I see here, set boasting aside. (i) Competence. It is hard to specify all areas I know a bit of. Disputes are not about a field, but usually about an small itchy point, which I might unexpectedly understand, even if it doesn't look so at first sight. (ii) Will. I am a WP servant (regardless of this Rfa). If I can be efficient in resolving that dispute - it is my pleasure to help. No prejudice about "my field" or "more or less inclined", it is about where I can help better. If the case is such that I am useless, I should go do something more productive. (iii) Opinion. We all miss things, and an extra look helps where we never expect. (iv) Timing. I might be an idiot in that field, but if (formally intelligent) editors are ripping articles within seconds, with outing at talk pages, and I happened to be there, I should apply some first aid (have had a few cases like that).
 * I'm curious what you mean by first aid. You've danced around the issue of your qualification for the subject. You seem to be ignoring major problems at Metamaterial in favor of an editor doing a lot of work who clearly is struggling with the most basic aspects of physics, while you say you are qualified in physics. I personally think that allowing editors to do work because they mean well when they lack a basic grasp of the subject is one of the most insidious kinds of damage happening on wikipedia. Do you think that accuracy is a responsibility to the reader? What responsibilities do administrators have toward interrupting inaccurate edits? Any? Does civility trump the encyclopedia? How long should bad science stay on wikipedia in article space while an editor struggles politely to get it right? All the while being quite wrong? --69.225.14.204 (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part of what ThaddeusB has to say, below, because I think the fence-sitting is a cause for concern. Sometimes an administrator has to make a decision to stop something form continuing. Materialscientist, imo, appears to be using the fence-sitting as a means of avoidance. It is not to wikipedia's advantage to allow editors to write articles in mainspace that are factually inaccurate and for an editor to appear to be monitoring the article, when they're not taking action gives the appearance a responsible editor is there, watching.


 * If you're there, but merely sitting on the fence watching what happens and don't intervene you both give time for unnecessary wiki-drama to play and potentially keep away editors who would take responsibility for the encyclopedic content. Yes, this is about the metamaterials article where I believe your inaction is allowing a bad article to be mirrored throughout cyberspace and protecting an irresponsible editor, Essjay syndrome. It looks good, he claims authority and is doing a lot of work, therefore...


 * An administrator will sometimes have to act. I think your fence-sitting or tendency to not take action is not a good attribute for an administrator. It looks like you're a shoo-in for this nomination, but I think it's a mistake at this time. Your adminship won't benefit wikipedia, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned not once, listing what is wrong with metamaterial article would be much more helpful than accusing its editors. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did list what was wrong, and I got no support from you while the user you were and are supporting made up a name, assigned it an acronym, put the made-up name and acronym into the article and fought me for days to keep his made up name and acronym in the article.


 * I don't see that as an administrator you will improve wikipedia by fence-sitting and allowing the perpetuation of garbage throughout wikipedia and its mirrors.


 * There are too many administrators already who play friends, rather than monitoring nonsense creators and stopping them in their tracks.


 * It's your garbage. The articles will blow up in wikipedia's face. I spent months getting cleaning up the Anybot mess, and having to fight administrators and editors just like you to get thousands of pages of garbage off of wikipedia. You made snap judgments against me and started out against me. As an administrator I believe you will act in the same careless manner, not acting when it is prudent to do so, and making baseless judgments in your actions when the least research would show you a clear path to not creating a mess on wikipedia. And this, imo, means you'll be a bad administrator. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Leaky Caldron
 * 14. You are clearly sailing through this RfA. Just for the record though, can you please set out your WP:Recall criteria?
 * A: Please don't take me rude or evading. I've glanced trough the talk of WP:Recall, got stunned, perhaps for the first time at WP, and feel any spontaneous answer I give (especially with "on record" request) would sound ridiculous even to myself a week after. Challenges have merits, and I shall try to give another thought. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 15. Which of the various admin tools do you think has the most potential to do harm in the hands of a good faith, but inexperienced editor? Why?
 * A: No champions can exist here. Access to personal information (through checkuser, OTRS, etc., even through simple recovery of a deleted page) and its use (e.g. indirect leak) "in good faith" can do much unpredictable and irreversible damage.


 * 15a. Same question, but this time the user is one who is inclined not to understand and/or respect consensus.
 * A: Same answer. For variety, let us shift from tools to behavior - discredit wikipedia by pretending to officially act on its behalf. Human feelings are more delicate than the entire WP content.


 * 16. Under what circumstances i it a good idea, in your opinion, to merge one Wikipedia article into another?
 * A: Merged dozens. Every case might be different, and a critical judgment is (i); (ii) is matching the topics (too many parameters to list here), (iii) is availability of a qualified editor who will merge. (iv) I find it important that at least one article is "abandoned" - otherwise too many problems may come too soon. (v) Stability of the articles and feasibility of consensus - e.g., if one article is at war, it might not be a good time to add another to it. Etc., etc. - when I see the actual articles, things to look at pop up unconsciously.


 * 16a. Assuming a merge is appropriate for a given article, what steps must be taken to complete the merge?
 * A: Put merge tags. Reach consensus (not only on merge, but on details too). Merge. Remove tag from 1, redirect 2→1. Clean up double redirects (not mandatory).


 * 17. While moving a DYK hook to the next queue, you notice a grammatical problem and article the hook accordingly. The editor who wrote the hook notices and leaves you a nasty rant on your talk page accusing you of being an ignorant fool who doesn't understand English and of abusing your admin powers.  How do you respond?
 * A: Every question has so many facets .. (i) I voiced my opinion at DYK that all non-trivial modifications of a hook should be done in public at T:TDYK, the only concern on that I saw is lack of time and people. (ii) I take DYK hooks seriously and would  try to contact the author to approve non-trivial changes (iii) There is no secret that I'm not a native speaker; I'm polishing my skills and am extra careful when insisting on style changes. The situation you describe would in practice mean that I go to his talk page and say that as a wikipedia servant I have to reflect and comply with the norms and standards of the English language (bundled with the WP:ENGVAR, etc. WP policies) reflected in the ... (Oxford dictionary, and whatever else appropriate :-)


 * Optional question from User:ChrisO
 * 18. Do you feel that you can cope with the psychological pressure of adminship, which may include dealing with people who are willing to harass, stalk and threaten you online or physically track you down offline, while coping with the isolation, stress and depression caused by having to deal with petty politics within the admin community and a lack of backup from other admins who are uninterested, unwilling to get involved or afraid of the consequences if they come to your aid?
 * A: I do. I've experienced all what you're talking about (Q8b is only a part of that), but I nevertheless believe in good faith of wikipedians.

General comments

 * Links for Materialscientist:
 * Edit summary usage for Materialscientist can be found here.

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

A note on canvassing
I sincerely apologize for all confusion and misunderstand I possibly caused. If you are here to discuss the phenomenon of canvassing, please reconsider - this was by no means intended. I wish you believe that I do expect from this page to provide me as much feedback as possible on what did I do wrong and how can I do better. (I already know that my invitations were wrong merely because of the confusion they caused - there is no need to repeat that.) None of the 13 people I invited were called to support, they were asked to provide that feedback. 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. Anyway, I canceled 5 of those 13 invitations, which were left unresponded. I did not cancel my invitation to Smokefoot because he responded with Q8 above, and this might serve as an example of what I meant here. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't there review/discussion processes you can go through before proceeding to a formal RfA to achieve the sort of input you claim you were soliciting from the people you contacted? Crafty (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The nomination timing was unexpected to me. Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was indeed contacted by MS, but I didn't feel any pressure to respond favorably or otherwise, I took MS's note as a reminder of an activity that I wouldn't know about otherwise. As one can sense from my (3!) probing questions above, I have reasonable familiarity with this editor.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the canvasing is almost a non-issue when compared to his overall contributions to Wikipedia. With MS I can assume good faith in regard to the talk page messages that were sent around. After viewing the messages that MS sent out I see that they are neutral, with no intention to sway. Perhaps, this is similar to the recent placing of a notification on top of the screen of every Wikipedia article to choose a board member candidate. From one point of view, the screen notification can be construed as canvasing. From another point of view, obviously it is not. The user's contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves and they are elucidated in the posts below. Ti-30X (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it clear that I am not saying that you acted in bad faith, but rather that you made a serious error in judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are people ever actually going to read WP:CANVASS instead of blindly using it as a crutch? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough. I'm getting sick of this. Canvassing is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. And: Important discussions sometimes happen at disparate locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive. Which part of this do you not understand? Have you even read the table at the top of the page? It says any message that has been mass-posted or is biased or partisan or secret is canvassing. Refer to definition 1. Since Materialscientist's message was so obviously mass-posted, and since there are other venues for "feedback" (such as WP:ER), that was clearly canvassing. Additionally, there's a reason why this exists. Astronominov 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is also a policy. He made a faux-pas, let's not hang-him/her because of it. Let's not lose perspective of what adminship actually is. Do we have reasons to believe MS will abuse the tools? Yes or no? If yes, then oppose. If no, then support. The rest is bureaucratic details. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the last part of your comment, Headbomb (really, I do). But perhaps you can elaborate on how IAR is applicable here? How did MS's canvassing help improve or maintain the encyclopedia? Also, not knowing about WP:CANVASS indicates a lack of knowledge of basic policy/guidelines. While MS might not intentionally abuse the tools, his lack of policy knowledge could be detrimental. Astronominov 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The real question did these actions harm the encyclopedia? The requests were made openly (rather than through private emails), worded neutrally, and made in good faith. MS acknowledges that, in retrospective, he/she shouldn't have made those requests. This should be water under the bridge for everyone now. Let's focus on whether or not he'd make a good admin, not on whether or not 'The Process' has been followed to the letter. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point here. Either MS was aware of WP:CANVASS and deliberately ignored it, or he wasn't aware of the guideline in the first place (which shows a lack of basic policy/guideline knowledge). So while his edits did not directly harm the encyclopedia, there is a potential for unintentional misuse of the tools, and that would be harmful. Astronominov 16:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *Forgive my dark humor .. just never stop being amazed how differently we perceive simple comments. My first reaction to Crotchety was to check the page view stats for WP:CANVAS to find that its views actually dropped quite a bit at the heat of this Rfa .. I thought I explained myself on that action, I don't think anyone believes I did that knowing that might lead to a public ostracism, and hope there is a reasonable doubt that not knowing WP:CANVAS means being unfamiliar with all basic WP policies. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MS stated above that hx placed 13 messages on 13 talk pages. Hx then stated that hx canceled 5 of those messages, and at that time had not recieved a response from those five. This leaves 8 messages. I cannot see how 13 entries on 13 talk pages constitutes "mass-mailing to other Wikipedians". Nor do I see how 8 entries on 8 talk pages constitutes "mass-mailing to other Wikipedians". These are miniscule numbers. And it is one miniscule faux pas. When considering the recent total number of accounts registered with Wikipedia (millions?), this is hardly an issue. It does not equate with this user's ability to use admin tools, and I do not see this as a dent, or crease impuning the user's judgement, or capability. The user's judgement and capability is aptly demonstrated by the comments of support below. Ti-30X (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're repeating Headbomb's points, and I've already answered them above. As for the "there are millions of accounts" argument, 13 is about 15-20% of the votes we get in an average RfA. And that's a more relevant way of looking at it. Astronominov  10:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the comments, there not canvassing! Why are we poking a dead horse here?Abce2 | This is not a test 14:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Astronominov, I agree that 15-20% of the votes is a more relevant way of looking at it. I didn't see that this was part of your point in the first place. Still, who goes into a new position in the real world knowing all the details of that position? Isn't there somewhat of a learning curve in any new job or position? A person comes in with the correct background, experience, and qualifications and learns the rest on the job - imho. I can see this could be the case here. How much experience are you thinking that a new admin should have? Ti-30X (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support You seem like my kind of candidate, heavy on the content side. Brilliant record in the article upgrade department. My review of your qualifications seems a bit thin in time spent here and overall edit count, but your stellar writing work causes me to look past those somewhat minor facts and give you my approval. And may I add it is an honor to be the first to do so!  Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  07:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Materialscientist's work at DYK is invaluable, would be that much more helpful with the admin tools. Very nice content work, as well. Good luck. :)  –Katerenka  (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I am impressed by the candidate's strong content work. But that was not my first impression of the candidate. My first impression of the candidate was at WP:FAR - an area (most unfortunately) not always known for its congenial atmosphere. The candidate was in the process of attempting to improve an article at WP:FAR. The manner in which conducted his behavior at WP:FAR was admirable, professional, and most appreciated. If Materialscientist can conduct himself with this demeanor as an admin, it will be a significant helpful contribution to the project. Also, science. :) Cirt (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Heads-down candidate who has really focused on issues, not drama. We've crossed paths before, but not much; Materialscientist, WP:MULTI is a suggestion, but centralizing the discussion makes it easier, especially when people are stalking you during a RfA. As an admin, it's especially important to be communicative. Just sayin'. tedder (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The user's judgments have been consistently sound. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support — Extremely impressed by candidates article work. Make sure if you get the tools, keep up your article work.  Aaroncrick  (talk ) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I saw him act in a very complicated discussion about a science topic, and with his attitude towards the involved users and his dedication to create a balanced view makes me feel he will be a good admin. His helpful and friendly advices made me do some work for DYK. --Stone (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) support Icewedge (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Cirt and Katerenka. Pmlineditor     ∞    09:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) support for a careful, dedicated editor who has been of great assistance to me in the past. I am impressed by Materialscientist's willingness to go the extra mile in helping others and calm demeanour when things get hot.  He has a good knowledge of the obscure workings of Wikipedia and will make a good admin.  I just hope we are not losing an even better content provider.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  09:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Dedicated vandal-fighter, positive content contributor, demonstrated good judgment. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Temporarily breaking a swine flu induced wiki-break to say,  support . Irbisgreif (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Irbisgreif is actually an oppose vote sent up here in a biological warfare campaign. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As nominator. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs, review) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) He's awesome.  ceran  thor 11:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Every time I see Materialscientist pop up on my watchlist, I know that there is one less article for me to worry about. They have a liberal and welcoming approach to newcomers, and take to the sources at the first hint of disagreement. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Perfect candidate. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 11:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I see nothing to concern me enough to oppose (although I remember once thinking that they were too harsh in a comment at DYK) and DYK desperately needs more admins working there anyway. Regards  So Why  11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know my being terse is a drawback, and I am working on being friendlier :-) Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the canvassing, I think that was, frankly, a stupid move by an otherwise good candidate. It won't make me switch to oppose but I urge MS to learn from this incident, i.e. that messages intended to be neutral can and will be interpreted as canvassing if done on such a large scale. Instead, the candidate should have used RfX-notice on their userpage to inform people of this RFA. The message left was neutral in tone but the fact that the candidate left it carries the implication that they want the recipient to !vote in support. Regards  So Why  17:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support—I see a lot of great work by Materialscientist. I was recently quite surprised when I noticed some use of the undo feature to revert vandalism—I was surprised that someone who had done such good work hadn't yet been given the relatively trivial ability to roll back changes. I immediately offered rollback then: I immediately support adminship now. I see no reason that Materialscientist can't be trusted with the tools. :) {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 12:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support I've seen this user around, remarks are civil, great content contributor, and good judgement. Will display the same qualities with the mop :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I have had only positive experience with this editor. I think he has the judgment and maturity required for an administrator. I hope he will become a good sysop. Ruslik_ Zero 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest possible support - Materialscientist is one of the best content contributors on en.wikipedia; he has contributed to lots of scientific articles. We need more people like Materialscientist on our admin team. I've supported many RFA candidates, but this one is the strongest support I've ever given to an RFA candidate so far! AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Considering that no one really informed him of the username policy until May 2009 (the only person who did so before was blocked soon after), and that he renamed soon after learning about the username policy, it is hard to hold that against him. In addition, it seems that the committee behind the account abandoned it to one person much earlier than that. But besides that whole issue, Materialscientist is a wonderful editor who will do great with the mop. At my first FAC on Nikita Zotov, he gave a review that essentially said, "You must find far more sources in Russian, or this article should not pass FAC". As I had no knowledge of the Russian language at all, Materialscientist kindly took a great deal of time to find sources and do translations of some old works that Google was useless for. From what I have observed, this is no different than how he acts all everywhere else. He would be a definitely positive as a sysop. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) To go against the likely onslaught of "ZOMG canvassing" opposes.  Majorly  talk  16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One RFA has been on hold for the final decision due to the Email canvassing, even though the threshold does not reach to usual discretionary zone for b'crats. So I rather want to see mature reasonings from you.--Caspian blue 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not email canvassing. This was done openly and honestly in a neutral fashion. It was done out of ignorance, not malice, and it is not a reason to prevent them having admin tools, because it's nothing to do with being an admin.  Majorly  talk  17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer, but the canvassing was carried out by the "candidate" himself to get more attention for his own RFA. According to your logic, the candidate does not fully understand WP:CANVASS and WP:NOT that admins should be well aware, so I could not still agree with your reasoning.--Caspian blue 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasoning with Majorly is like reasoning with a wall. I recommend we drop this here. I'm sure everyone else can make up their own minds about how "disruptive" canvassing is, and it's relevance to this RfA. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 17:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm quite open to persuasive argument, but yet I've not seen a single reasonable one to make me change my mind. Those who oppose over canvassing issues are simply looking in the wrong places for what makes a good/bad admin. Will this candidate abuse admin rights? Or misuse unintentionally? Please provide a diff/evidence of them doing so, and if I believe that it shows a tendency that they may not be suited for adminship I will gladly switch. So far though, it's just people fussing because he made the slight error of daring to inform people about his RfA. I disagree with the guideline, and think that people who use it to oppose RfAs are looking at it in the wrong way. Please also see this for further thoughts.  Majorly  talk  20:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, you're entitled to "your own" opinion, but which does not make you a free right to squash the opposors' rationale based on the canvassing just because you disagree with the assessment. You clearly have your answer on any possibility of the candidate' abuse of the tool which greatly differs from the opposers' view. Since you disagree with the existent Wikipedia guideline, I would rather not to read your essay.--Caspian blue 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Keepscases (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems to have the right mentality for an administrator. Not concerned with canvassing unless it was hostile or disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, great editor who's well-worthy of the bit. Not convinced by canvassing concerns although I will revisit over coming days to see if that goes anywhere. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks okay, and I agree with Majorly, Doc Quintana, and Juliancolton: from what I saw, the canvassing was neutrally-worded and inviting people to vote here...not necessarily in support (and it was most certainly not canvassing done to sink someone's RfA, so I don't believe it can be compared to canvassing done by someone trying to sink a candidate they don't like). Besides, what Materialscientist did shows he's not an RfA regular (I don't remember coming across him until now), therefore, his behavior here will be genuine, not puffed-up to please RfA regulars and/or to trick those who like opposing because a candidate got one of their templated stock questions wrong. No concerns here. Acalamari 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've worked with Materialscientist extensively in the past. He is an excellent worker. His writing skill isn't perfect, but not to the point that it would inhibit communication. Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongest possible support I have worked with Materialscientist on Wikipedia's element articles for about a year. In that time, this user has proven a magnificent track record of quality contributions and an ability to work well with others, even when those other users were less than cordial. As far as the supposed "canvassing", well, not everybody who actually contributes content to the encyclopaedia frequents the cesspool of policy wonkery that RFA has become. So neutrally expanding comment in the spirit of IAR outside of the RFA regulars does more good than harm, IMO. --mav (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support remember this guy from a challenging rescue operation for a plastic deformation article. Hes able to contribute with good advice on talk page disputes in addition to his excellent content building. Also per Mav - i raised the idead of attracting more participation by neutral notification of a candidates fellow project members on RFA talk and there was only one objector. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Shimgray | talk | 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - A pretty reasonable user. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Strongest possible support This editor is perhaps one of the most able to maintain a balanced view of any conflict in editing. He has literally mentored me through some contentious conflicts on articles where communication had totally broken down. I was literally able to shift my point of view due to his communications. One of my first impressions of him was a totally self-directed, perhaps thankless, grunt job, of rewriting 70 references on an aritcle that I wrote. And, the quality and style of that job was impressive, besides the tedious mechanics of rewriting 70 references.  I was a WP newbie at the time and didn't understand the best way to write references. Through his mentoring I learned more effective ways to create referecnces and citations for an article. Similar to the mechanics of referencing articles for WP, I learned to use the best sources that were more reliable than others, because of this user's suggestions. He appears to have a naturally effective writing style. For awhile, I provided content while he provided editing that provided clarity. So he is definitely able to confer and collaborate on editing. IMHO he has a clear understanding of other editors' point of view and is able to see both sides of a situation. He has also, lately, mentored me on improving the quality of the articles, which I have authored at WP. He will be an effective administrator, of this I am sure. Ti-30X (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Editor has shown concern for article content quality and effort in composition, much beyond the trivial housekeeping, anti-vandalism, and other mechanical efforts by others. Kbrose (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Wikipedia desperately needs scientifically literate admins. Skinwalker (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Tikiwont's oppose isn't a problem for me; the userpage said "This user is associated with ..." Even though it later said "we", I think the user was representing themselves as one editor, not as a role account for a business.  If notices of this RFA were posted on the pages of just admins and scientists, then the closing crat should take that into account ... a poll from a year ago showed admins are significantly more likely to support at RFA than non-admins, and scientists are of course likely to be more supportive of this candidate than the average voter.  However, the odds are that this candidate didn't know about the old poll, and anyway, discounting the solicited votes is enough of a penalty.  I don't care if candidates don't know how things are done at RFA, I care what they've been doing before they got here, and the supports above look very strong.  Good scientific writing is a huge plus for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good editor, nice attitude, seems trustworthy to me. Dr Dec  (Talk)   23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I do dislike canvassing. What he/she did was neutrally worded and not much different (in my opinion) the userbox that RFA candidates frequently put on their userpage to attract attention (both good and bad opinions) to their RFA. We need quality effective people like Materialscientist to have the tools, so I support this adminship.  Royal broil  00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I don't think the "canvassing" was actual canvassing as the notices were quite neutrally worded. Adminship is no big deal, and nothing has been presented which leads me to believe the tools would be abused in any way. I think having Materialscientist as an admin would be far more than a net positive for the project. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes_check.svg  Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Materialscientist. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong support excellent work on science articles, attention to detail etc  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support: I've seen Materialscientist mostly at DYK, and he's a big help there. He is a good editor, and I believe he's ready for the extra buttons. Knowing RFA, I thought he'd be accused for canvassing when I saw that message my talk page. But as Julian quite correctly points out below he was not exactly asking for support, and I'm ready to accept the candidate's explanation for that (which seems quite plausible to me, and WP:AGF still does exist on Wikipedia). ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Excellent content contributions, especially (as the nominator points out) on key articles. That's not something to necessarily push me here, though - I must say I really like your answers, especially seven and nine.  It seems you have already been through the worst that an admin could hope to experience and come out the other side, so you definitely have the temperament.  Based on that, really, there's absolutely no reason to expect you'd do anything aside from continuing to produce excellent quality stuff. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I have seen much useful work from this editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support after much review of the strong contribution history, and clarification of the issues with respect to the previous account name. -- Samir 05:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support switched from neutral I'm satisfied with the answer to A8 that I was waiting on, and other things look great. I think the "canvassing" issue was an honest mistake.--chaser (away) - talk 06:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. The work I've seen MaterialScientist do has been first class. Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per candidate's compliance with WP:CANVASS; if all the opposes based on the alleged canvassing are thrown out by the bureaucrats, then this !vote should be as well. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support because of the WP:GA work. Bwrs (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, looks like a solid and useful contributor. I'm particularly impressed by the fact that this user has contributed so much to so many Top-importance articles.  Best of luck!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
 * 28) Support. Candidate is a good editor with quality contributions and good common sense. That said, the canvassing thing was a moment of Epic fail; do be careful during your adminship. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. User was a bit hard to deal with in his/her first few months on wikipedia, but as he/she picked up experience became as easy to get along with as any other editor. I was one of the editors who was 'canvassed', (see question #14 of my RFA for my full feelings on this). Since I interact with MS relatively often, I have a lot to lose by placing him/her in power if I thought he/she would make a bad admin. His/her advice about potentially COI editors is pretty much exactly what I did when I first met him/her (under the name NIMSOffice) (on Optical properties of carbon nanotubes). I reviewed each article he/she edited and found a refreshing respect of WP:NPOV. I may or may not have given him/her editing advice (I don't recall) early on. There's no reason to suspect that he/she will abuse them, can be trusted to revert his/her bad calls and mistakes, and per 'adminship is no big deal', support. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Solid contributor, honest answers to questions about past username issues. I agree that expert retention is very important, especially in areas such as those MS involves himself. As a final note, neutrally worded messages are not canvassing. Glass  Cobra  14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - Editor is dedicated and knowledgeable. He/she made some non-trivial mistakes in the first six months of editing - COI stuff and (IMHO) arrogant edits - but lessons were learned.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. I see no problems. I just hope that if this passes you continue to contribute to articles along with your moppy duties. <b style="background:blue; color:white; font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Valley</b>2 city ‽ 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Moved from Oppose. I can accept the apology for the "canvassing" confusion, we all make mistakes. I agree that MS is a good editor. Warrah (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Your impertinent questions about my brilliant contributions to DYK are somewhat annoying - and the encyclopedia is much the better for them :). Good luck.  Ben   Mac  Dui  18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Valuable contributor who shows common sense. --Itub (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support My only encounter with Materialscientist was at my first DYK in a long time. Both the candidate and I became a bit testy over some formatting issues, but MS remained civil, calm, and the encounter turned out positive. As a recent participant at DYK I note that the process does have considerable backlog, and could use another Admin, and Materialscientists states the intention of continuing work here. Reviewing the candidate's work, I notice a good variety of article & image work/creation, article review, AfD work with no strong ideology... Opposes seem to focus around COI/"expert" claims and allegations of canvassing. The only problem I can see with an "expert" editor is if s/he were to edit as an authority-- citing no sources, and believing that his/her own word were sufficient for an edit. The candidate, so far as I see, cites sources appropriately, so this is not an issue... As someone recently involved in an RfA involving canvassing issues, I find WP's attitude towards this childish and insulting. Childish, because it implies the WP community is too immature to have participated in an actual election, which always involves solicitations to vote one way or another. Insulting because it implies the WP community does not trust its editors to evaluate the issues and make up their own minds despite this sort of solicitation. This is all the more insulting when these are simply notifications of a discussion-- as in this case-- rather than solicitations to vote a particular way... I see no problems with the editor's attitude, and only good work. Should be a fine Admin. Dekkappai (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Strong writer, and tools will only aid Materialscientist in DYK. An asset to the project, no concerns at this timeOttawa4ever (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Sensible answers to difficult questions.  I have no personal experience with this editor AFAIK but everything I see indicates someone who will use the tools well and work hard to improve WP.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. I appreciate the honesty, and frankly the ability to recognize when one has taken an action that others believe to be a mistake and accept that and learn from it reaffirms to me what others have said above: that User:Materialscientist is a calm, collected contributor who assumes (and deserves the assumption of) good faith of others.  (As a side note, while I wouldn't have personally notified other users of this discussion, I believe he was doing so neutrally and in good faith, and I do not believe it's an example of improper canvassing, bad judgment, or anything of that nature.)  user: J  aka justen (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. You seem to be sensible, helpful and productive. I would have preferred that you gained additional experience outside DYK, particularly in admin-related functions, before standing for sysop. But that said, I trust your judgment and think you'll be a positive force with the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support - I think there are a number of good qualities from this editor, but the answer to Q8b is the kind of thing I want to see out of an administrator. --  At am a  頭 00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support to cancel out any one of the absurd opposes. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Doesn't work that way. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misread his statement. The way I read it was that in his crotchety way, he really, really disagrees with the "opposes". He is not a "stupid", Crotchety Old Man . Anyway I'm sure we will hear from him if I am wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the 4:1 support:oppose ratio required for a successful RfA. Perhaps I took his comment too literally. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: I tend to agree with Crotchety. (By the way, I might be old but I am not crotchety) - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Seems a good and worthwhile candidate. While the notes to peoples' talk pages were perhaps not ideal, seems a tempest in a teapot and not worth missing out on a likely good admin as a result. We need admins with clue, good temperament, and good reactions to evolving situations. That is much more important than how familiar they are with the plethora of policies, guidelines, and essays. Martinp (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The canvassing thing was a simple, silly mistake, made in good faith. No reason to believe the user will break the wiki. They are now intimately familiar with the policy and why many believe their actions were inappropriate, and I have yet to see indication that the candidate is not familiar with any other vital policies. The   Seeker 4   Talk  12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per high quality answers. Canvasing issue gave me pause however. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Has a clue and will do just fine. Canvassing issue is completely overblown. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I have worked with the candidate, so based on that I support. <font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">This is <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">not a test 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Seems like a useful contriutor who'd use the tools sensibly. the opposes don't concern me. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support no actual problems here - good candidate who does great work. The "canvassing" here is not what its term belies; neutral wording which doesn't appear to be aimed at a particular crowd, such as the candidate's "friends", is not canvassing. To be frank, it was a kind of dumb move to make, although I'm not bothered by the literal action. Material is otherwise suited for adminship, and should do just fine in that role. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Canvassing and multi-user concerns aside, the wealth of evidence that Materialscientist is a valuable member of the community is enough to persuade me to vote in favor.  Vincent   Valentine  23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. The canvassing I've seen falls easily within the word and spirit of WP:CANVASS. A note to the nominator, however; I do not give a flying fig if the candidate has a PhD in physics, economics, quantum mechanics or cookery. I don't care if he's unqualified or not. Your inclusion of that fact is completely irrelevant and unrelated to his editing skills. RFA is not a job interview. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support - have interacted with MS at DYK and have only seen good work from him around the place. Love the article contribs. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  00:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I saw Material do well with an editor who attempted to compromise their real life on WP&mdash;so I am comfortable with granting them additional authority. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - an effective editor who's been incredibly helpful over at DYK. Geraldk (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per nominator. Materialscientist doesn't appear to be a nuanced editor who has carefully studied all WP policy, but that WP will be better off with him as an admin seems clear. I hope that he keeps up some content work, in addition to recent changes patrol, protection, etc. Shanata (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support User has been an nothing but an asset over at DYK with his contributions. Not only by being thorough, but also by the constructive manner in which he interacts with the other contributors. Have no reason to believe MS would abuse the added tools or admin-related functions. &spades; B.s.n.   &hearts; R.N. contribs 09:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, very good content contributor. --Aqwis (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I have seen the editor's work (Diamond) and comments at FAR/FAC, and trust his abilities and judgment (he may not yet be well versed with every sub-clause of every policy and guideline but that, unlike judgment or temperament issues, is easy to fix). About canvassing: Given how the messages the editor posted were worded neutrally, and that there was no attempt to hide the invitations, I am confident that they were a genuine attempt to invite reviews from editors he knows and respects, rather than an attempt to sway the RFA. Even if this was an error, it is one that Materialscientist can learn from, and not a determinative flaw in my opinion. Lets not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support – excellent contributor with well thought out answers. The extra buttons will enhance his abilility to contribute to WP. --<b style="color:#FFB521;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:#3773A5;">shhh 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, I think you would be a very good administrator. You have done a lot of work in mainspace. --Samwb123T-C-@ 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Very good user, and no major concerns, unlikely to misuse the tools. Also, I echo the support votes above, that the canvassing issue has been completly overblown. <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Athe Weatherman   17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I see no reason to oppose, as I agree the canvassing thing is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Good luck!  Burner 0718  <sup style="color:black;">JibbaJabba!  17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Contribs are excellent, and is here to build the encyclopedia. -- Stani Stani  18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Good candidate, I don't think the canvassing is something to be concerned about. Pikiwyn  <tt> talk </tt> 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Excellent contributions - I have faith that this editor would not abuse the mop. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Great contributions to this encyclopedia. He could definitely use the tools. Airplaneman  talk 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support an excellent editor and writer who should make an excellent, reasonable admin. Coemgenus 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support strong answers to questions, meets all my basic criteria. :) good luck. ~ Arjun  23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * after looking over the diffs relating the canvasing, I feel as though this is a minor issue. This is a good user however I am a little put off by the campaigning. But its not enough for me to oppose, just refrain in the future. ~ Arjun  23:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: Under Wikipedia statute 44 there is no substantial evidence against him nor do I see a reason to object. Good luck. South Bay (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Net positive contributions, good attitude, and an ability to facilitate working collaboration. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">Steven Walling 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A really nice guy who knows his stuff! :)Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support In my opinion MS deserves an adminship for all the work that he has done.  Rkr 1991  (Wanna chat?) 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Absolutely. The V-Man  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(Said · Done) 21:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per YellowMonkey's say-so and content contributions. — mattisse  (Talk) 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) support —DerHexer (Talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Lemme see. Admin shortage. Solid content candidate. Major canvassing mistake (ouch!) but not done in bad faith or under the wraps. Worth forgiving. Seems like a no brainer - the support, not the candidate :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong Support Great editor. <font color="Red" face="Tahoma">December21st2012Freak <font color="Orange" face="Tahoma">chat 03:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - In edits such as this, the candidate shows a sensitivity to fairness in content. Kablammo (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Good candidate and a no-brainer vote. I see no substance to the CANVASS charge either. "Canvass" (to me) implies an element of bad faith, and there was no evidence of that. Looking forward to having MS on the team. Manning (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - no issues, solid content contributor, knows our policies and can apply them. - Biruitorul Talk 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Absolutely. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  07:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) 'Support – for a good candidate. Graham Colm Talk 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Big help at DYK, with the admin bit he can become even more important to the process. No problems, so Support.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants <font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27 ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support – I've seen this user contribute in several productive ways, and am convinced he will be a good admin. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - I trust this user with the extra tools. <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support  iMatthew  talk   at 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I look forward to working with this editor as an admin, he is friendly courteous and knows his stuff.  We need more like him.  RP459 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Of the the year where they provided contributions they did so for more than half a year with an account name indicating a WP:COI conflict of interest with the National Institute for Materials Science administration and several months with a user page that actually indicated several users on a role account.. This does not diminish the value of their contributions in gneral but makes me wary here with respect to the admin position as this was a rather long period for an account name that on the surface violates WP:NOSHARE, was not that long ago and has not be disclosed up front or clarified. A convincing explanation of what has changed when and why, say under question 8, where the subsequent name change is raised might sway me or at least help subsequent !voters to judge this better.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dislike your canvassing, and IMO your conduct there is inappropriate for an admin. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, look at the following diffs: Also, I must disagree with Soap. This is not borderline canvassing. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov  16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem here. He's just asked a few people for their input. Your canvassing link talks about "talk-page spamming" and being "disruptive". I think that's a bit over the top. Dr Dec  (Talk)   23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk-page spamming is probably the appropriate term here. Please read the link I've provided. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 08:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read your link. How else would I be able to give direct quotes from your link?! Dr Dec  (Talk)   17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my oppose and am now neutral. Materialscientist is primarily a content contributor, so he might not be familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I would urge him to read List of guidelines and List of policies. Since he's a content contributor, I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt, and am willing to lower my usual RfA standards. Also, I consider expert retention to be one of WP's major problems, and punishing Materialscientist for a single error is potentially harmful for the encyclopedia. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 08:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move from Neutral. My reasoning can be found in the Neutral section.--Caspian blue 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Come back when you have the slightest a better understanding of WP:CANVASS. Sure, we'd all like to solicit opinions from well known and experienced Wikipedians whose name might lend some weight at RFA, but you simply can't do that. Administrators are expected to understand our basic policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, with all due respect, the canvassing policy explicitly states that sending out neutrally worded messages is not canvassing. I encourage you to review the candidate's message: "I ... would appreciate your comments". I expect that as an admin you would understand that. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of admins who do not respond kindly to solicitations regardless of how they are worded.Smallman12q (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this part of the policy, concerning vote stacking:"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion."The users who received the message are mostly editors of scientific articles, administrators, or both. Scientifically minded editors are more likely to support another such user than those who do not edit such articles. Administrators are expected to avoid even the appearance of biased or deceptive practices. I'll tell you what, I'll just put the question to the candidate directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the candidate's edits have been of scientific articles I would think that "scientifically minded editors" are those best placed to judge the candidate's work: they have the most interaction with the candidate and his edits. Believe me, scientists can be very competitive and are often argumentative. I doubt that a scientist would support another scientist's candidature simply because they were both scientists. Dr Dec  (Talk)   17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without getting into discussion, please understand that all action happened within minutes yesterday and did not intend any harm (as mentioned above). It is a good lesson for all my future activity, but is not a reflection of corrupted spirit. IMO, if we can't fix our blunders, which happen every day, there is little use for us on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, both above and below, I don't think you acted in bad faith, but rather that you made an error in judgement that reveals a somewhat weak grasp of certain policies. As admins are expected to have a better understanding of such policies, I opposed. Right now this RFA is at about 90%, so it seems pretty likely you will pass, just be sure you fully understand a policy before using the admin tools to enforce/support it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Astronominov. The canvassing policy was ignored. Warrah (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Move to Support
 * Please note that canvassing is not a policy. It is not nearly as important as, say, WP:BLP which is a policy.  Majorly  talk  22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still the wrong thing to do, whether it is more important or less important than something else. I am still opposed. Sorry. Warrah (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Astronominov and Beeblebrox. Crafty (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with Crafty. I also took offense at the Breeblebox's comment "Come back when you have the slightest understanding of WP:CANVASS. Sure, we'd all like to solicit opinions from..." Julian rightly points out "with respect", that the canvassing policy explicitly states that sending out neutrally worded messages is not canvassing. Also asking for the opinion of others is a good thing. Finally it is important to treat each other with respect! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dialed that back slightly, but my opposition stands. My response to Julian's concerns about this should explain why. I think this candidate could use a little more time to get up to speed on policies. I do acknowledge that scientific articles are a difficult and oft-neglected area, and we could really use more admins with the the science know-how to make the tough calls in RPP requests, disputes and so forth related to such articles, but the invites, in my mind fail the duck test, for the reasons explained above. As someone who has been through this rather painful process twice, I was pained that users I respected were apparently unaware I was running, but I didn't send them all invitations for the very reason that I knew it would appear I was attempting to stack votes. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt action re the dial back. At this point I am very much on the fence. Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you only disagree with me now, right? Crafty (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be honest, I'm not sure what a "clusterfuck" (two words?) is . . . but it's inappropriate! I still wish you would work on the attitude. Vulgarity and rudeness have no place on Wikipedia. But let us put this behind and us follow Beeblebrox's good example by dialing back on this issue. As far as I am concerned it is over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I note your positive contributions in many areas of the project, but I am worried that you assign your own judgment higher precedence than norms established by long-term community consensus. A recent example is your statement about GA here. " I myself simply quick-fail nominations submitted without contacting main contributors ... as a clear abuse of [the] GA system." (See diff for context). As for the perceived canvassing, I'll AGF that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to skew the RfA, but it was a lapse in judgement nonetheless. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff is an example of misunderstanding on our part. As I noted further in the thread, I never fail (or judge) a nomination without goods reasons reflected in the guidelines. I was referring to premature nominations, by a person without knowledge of the nominated article and GA process, which obviously failed basic MOS and GAN guidelines. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Since this was my primary concern, I ask the closing bureaucrat to consider me neutral for all intents and purposes. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --cremepuff222 (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason, Cremepuff?--chaser (away) - talk 06:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I don't support him. --cremepuff222 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno... admin standards must have been pretty low back in 2007... <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that you would usually have to comment on an oppose is becuase: 1) If you see a support without a commentm it is usually saying per nominator and agreeing with them. If you oppose, then you are disagreeing and usually give a reason for this. 2) An oppose without a reason is not given much weight by the closing 'crat, you may as well have not bothered writing oppose. Regards. <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Athe Weatherman   15:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I too dislike oppose votes without explanation, and agree that they don't really hold much weight, but saying that "admin standards must have been pretty low back in 2007" isn't an appropriate comment to make at an RfA (or elsewhere); not only are you insulting Crempuff222 (who I admit seems to be mostly inactive for at least a year) but every administrator elevated that year (which I can assert would include a number of very fine administrators). --  At am a  頭 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However I can understand oppose !votes based on a user's instincts. If an editor feels he just doesn't trust the candidate based on a gut feeling then it's their right and is still a valid oppose. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to the candidate. <font color="#FF3030">Astronominov 10:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, big 'ol 2009 peep trodding all over the old time '07er. I was simply letting the community know that I oppose the candidate, and the grounds on which I oppose have already been stated by other contributors. I have nothing to add to this discussion. If you really want, next time I'll do the big 'ol "per above" or whatever if you really think it's that unfair to the candidate. --cremepuff222 (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Editor appears to be competent and have a solid grounding in mainspace edits, but I'd like to see a little more experience before he gets the tools. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sorry and I hate to do this to you, but the canvassing was too inappropriate to ignore. Your messages clearly were to be discouraged by our canvassing guideline as they obviously weren't sent to encourage oppose votes. Although you may now understand why this was wrong, the issue is that you didn't understand the policy while you were up for RfA and that raises some red flags in my book. Basic policies and guidelines such as canvassing should be familiar long before a run at RfA and knowledge of the correct application of them is a bare minimum for adminship.  I would overlook this if I were satisfied that you had an understanding of our policies in other places, but it is hard to assertain that from a glance at your editing record: I don't see many times where you participated in discussions about the meaning of our policies and guidelines.  Them  From  Space  04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose, mostly for the canvassing. It's not a policy, true, but it's one of the fundamental givens that has to be protected, as Wikipedia's definition of consensus depends on neutral notification of all parties. A neutrally worded invitation is as you will now know, regarded as canvassing due to the selection of editors (or, invariably, by omission of certain editors.) The candidate's AFD record seems reasonable, and he's certainly worked at building the encyclopedia, and I probably would have supported had I not read the opposes, but I think the issue at hand is just too blatant to be ignored. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding biased "selection", set aside wrights or wrongs, you might wish to glance through my note at the talk of this page, as well as comments by the "canvassed" (Headbomb, Smokefoot, etc.) Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The answer to Q14 indicates hesitancy which is worrying. The article on recall shouldn’t “stun” anyone. It’s a set of linked pages setting out various options and much less complicated than many of our detailed policy pages. As an Admin. he will be expected to interpret complex issues quickly and to make decisions based on a thorough knowledge of much more detailed areas. Together with his lack of awareness on canvassing (contained in the guide to would be admins.) and the rather convoluted answers to some questions, raises concern about potential communication issues and ability to interpret policy. Leaky  Caldron  09:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would counter that being "stunned" is probably the most healthy reaction of a normal human being on their first exposure to some of the amazing conniptions we get into under the guise of community governance. I'm not sure I agree with LC's take that "as an admin, he will be expected to interpret complex issues quickly and make decisions based on thorough knowledge of ... detailed areas". I would prefer to think that our admins should make wield their mops and buckets with clue, discretion, and humility - using our voluminous policy discussions as a reasonable guide, tempered by TL;DR. Martinp (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, surely you're not suggesting that Admins. guess are you? ;)  :)  Leaky  Caldron  12:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: MS said he/she got stunned by reading the talk page of the recall article. I don't know exactly why MS got stunned, but it is true that discussion pages sometimes contain... interesting material. --Itub (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I've got stunned by the discussions of that specific page; that is, I new what Martinp was saying about policies in general, but that page and a request to comment on record surprised me. Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I really liked your answer to that question. Nobody asked me about recall at either of my RFAs, and I'm glad they didn't because it's is such a controversial subject that no matter how you answer you are going to get at least one oppose as a result. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Mainly per Orlady. A neutrally-worded notice is not canvassing, true, but this episode may, in my opinion, show a slight naivete about what does and doesn't go down here, which would worry me if it extended into other areas where the candidate was involved as an admin. Its a slight worry but it's there. There's a slight worry also about demeanor, per Orlady above too. Great content contributions, and adminship is no big deal, but neither is it a reward. As a scientist myself, the question I asked described one of my biggest challenges in getting involved on controversial science or pseudoscience pages; I found the candidate's answer rather unsatisfying. I would of course be open to reconsider this if a better answer was forthcoming, or if a persuasive, evidence-based rebuttal could be made, showing the candidate exhibiting cluefulness and tact in a difficult situation. Both, ideally. Sorry. --John (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and just a note. Honestly, I have not treated the Afd examples of Orlady above as delicate situations where every word counts. My practice shows Afd debates are often unfriendly (just an observation, no slight). That said, I noted above that I'm working hard on my diplomacy; I do not take "practice" as a guideline and don't recall falling uncivil anywhere no matter the situation. It is up to you whether or not to take my word on it, to check the archives, to ask the involved, or simply forget this and keep your opinion - I'd respect that. Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much to do with civility as with tact. Your interpersonal skills are important as an admin, and brusqueness or let's say personalization (as above) will not be your friends if this goes through as I confidently expect it to. --John (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I believe it not our perfection, but the ability to be critical, to accept our faults, and to improve that matter more. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to this section as I just noticed that MS does not warn those he reverts. This, alongside the above, supports my gut feeling that the candidate is not quite ready for the tools. --John (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I long ago concluded that it's not worth the trouble of warning anonymous one-time vandals, as many of them never return. Registered users whose first edits look like mistakes do deserve some form of feedback, however. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of that at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Is this an official consensus or just your own take on things? I firmly believe that all vandalism reverted (even, nay especially anon vandalism) should be subject to warning. No need to continue this here unless you want to; please post any response to my talk. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck my oppose as I no longer feel comfortable making even a symbolic oppose against someone who so clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, and who I trust. I've seen encouraging signs that the candidate is improving in communication with other users. With no disrespect to Orlady, with whom I disagree, I'd like to request that you consider warning vandals you revert more frequently, whether or not this succeeds. It looks a shoe-in at the moment. Good luck. --John (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose per John above (on both counts). -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To John and Soap - please do not take things at face values. The second is anon. vandalism. The first diff is an obvious test edit, adding a stray image into a regularly vandalized mainframe article. I do agree that I should have told that to the editor, and that is what I was talking about at the top of this page - as a dedicated content contributor I did bother about article content most and foremost, but I'm quickly moving into engaging with people. Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My !vote is a protest against a behavior that is common among editors and administrators as well, and is not about you specifically. Don't take it too seriously.  If this RfA somehow veers down to controversial levels I'll revisit my !vote, but I feel comfortable here so long as you're at 90.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 13:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You would change your !vote based on what others are !voting? Sounds like you don't have the courage of your convictions, or at least have not truly made up your mind and I would have thought that "neutral" would be more appropriate.  If you would truly !vote "support" if you felt there was a danger of this candidate failing then that's where you should by anyhow, regardless of what anyone else is doing because you do want him to be promoted.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing because I believe it's important to warn editors after reverting their edits, for various reasons which I won't go into here. However, this is a belief I hold at odds with many people besides Materialscientist, and so if this RfA were on the border between passing and failing, I would not want my concerns to cause the RfA to fail. That doesn't mean I'd support; I'd just revisit the RfA and likely withdraw to Neutral. (Also, I believe the "canvassing" shows evidence of his acting without thinking things through, though I do believe him when he says he wasn't trying to puff up his support column.  Again, if the RfA were to end up in the 70's (which is unlikely at this point), I would return and reconsider whether it was really worth an oppose vote.)  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 18:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - primarily because of what I see as fence sitting in the answer to many questions. Yes every situation is unique, but I can't really get much of an insight to how you would do things when you say "I'd have to see the actual situation to decide" to every question.  Secondarily, I think admins should have very strong communication skills since they will often be called upon to explain their actions to people who may not understand Wikipedia very well.  A large of your talk comments (including here) are difficult to read & may cause confusion.  (I do understand you aren't a native speaker, so I understand why this is the case.)  Your article work, however, is very strong and much appreciated (and interestingly uses much better English on average).  If adminship was a reward, you'd have earned it, but of course it isn't. Finally, since this seems very likely to pass I would just like to make sure that you are now aware that something like open source optics (your only recent speedy tag) doesn't really fit the definition of G3 - Hoax, which only for blatantly ridiculous stuff not merely untruly stuff. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
I'm undecided right now, so that's why I'm neutral; I'll make up my mind shortly and don't plan to stay here. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (Move to Oppose) Sorry, but I am not satisfied with your answer to my question. There are many editors and admins whose background are in science, but the main problem in their tendentious conflicts that I consider is not that "often intolerant to those not accepting or even not understanding their views." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for announcing or arguing for scientists' thesis and belief to their peers, but your comment like "non-experts are disrupting and preventing experts from making fine science articles". Well, articles can not be written from scratch, but with reliable sources and consensus. Science fields are one of most frequent disputes brought to ARBCOM along with religion, and ethnic and international disputes, so I think the answer is somewhat evasive from the point. However, I don't find any compelling reason to oppose you yet and you have archived great contributions to Wikipedia, so I'll be here from now.--Caspian blue 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, scientific articles should be written by experts; non-experts shouldn't interfere too much with experts when it comes to the scientific articles. In fields like International Relations or Political Science, different theorists have different view-points. Samuel Huntington's the civilization clash theory, for example, is supported by some IR theorists and opposed by some IR theorists. There is no way to experimentally prove or disprove Huntington's theory. But, in natural sciences, if a scientific theory is supported by the experimental results, it is universally accepted by natural scientists. AdjustShift (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never said that the article should be written by non-experts, but do think that encyclopedia should be written by only qualified people (which is against Wikipedia's principle, "anyone can edit Wikipedia"). However, the view that the main blame for the tendentious content disputes in science fields is lied to "non-experts" who do not understand experts' POV is simply lacking of the whole picture. I've seen that many "experts" (not necessarily scientists) making a lot of OR as if their unpublished or published thesis or argument are smoothly accepted to Wikipedia; in fact which do not reach the general consensus in academics and to the public though. The candidates' answer is well...worrying me that "scientists only could solve the problem for that matter". That's what I'm talking about.--Caspian blue 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Oppose due to the blatant canvassing to "too many people" along with my concern over his answer.--Caspian blue 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: your question. Please understand that my answer to your question was, in essence, to deal with every case individually-every case is so different and it is so easy to harm people by inappropriate admin action. I fully agree that WP is by no means a place for science disputes, but once they spill over here, we've got to deal with them, and experience tells that blocking alone is not productive. My belief is based on two complex cases (one is Q8b) I went through. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move back to here. The candidate's civil responses to not only me but also others makes me change my vote again. The canvassing incident appears to be isolated one although it is inappropriate and should not be repeated. I do think the candidate needs more time to be familiar with more Wiki rules and policies, but I believe that he would not abuse his tool and he is quite helpful to DYK areas, so I'll be here.--Caspian blue 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Great content contributor.. but there's just.. something.. that doesn't seem quite right about this candidate.. can't put my finger on it just yet.. neutral for now. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Was going to support, but the canvassing is worrisome. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I came here to support but the diffs noted in the oppose section are troubling.  You've done some great work for the project and I encourage you to keep it up.   If this RfA passes (I'm assuming it will), for future reference, please don't canvass.  -  F ASTILY   (T ALK ) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - was going to support, but, canvassing is a big NO.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awaiting A8. The candidate's responses to the canvassing allegations has been excellent.--chaser (away) - talk 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) switched to support
 * 1) Neutral, for now--not because of this 'canvassing' thing, which I think is a bit overblown, but because of a past interaction I had with this editor at DYK, in which I felt they were a bit too judgmental and hard-headed (and, pardon my French, a prude). Above, there is some occasional mention of terseness, and I like my administrators more encouraging and diplomatic. So far it looks like the scientist will make it, and either way I wish them well--xe does not seem likely to abuse the power, and xe has done a lot of good work producing content and volunteering at DYK. Still, my past experience with this editor prevents me from wholeheartedly supporting their nomination. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that my writing does appear harsh at times. Several (DYK) editors (who really disliked me for that, e.g. Cbl62) discussed that with me, and we came to like each other :-) Seriously, it is an important point, and I was doing my best to be friendlier these weeks (independent of this sudden nomination), as you might note on DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I've interacted with Materialscientist at DYK and found him to be smart and sensible. However, seeing that he is interested in working at AfD, I reviewed some of his AfD contributions, and I do not perceive them as indicating the desired level of cluefulness regarding Wikipedia policies. A few examples: 2015 hurricane season - superficial comment focusing on the fact that topic is a future hurricane season, not addressing the content of the article (which other AfD participants discussed); Global Warming Hysteria - comment is only about the title of the article (not particularly helpful to the AfD process); Neuroquantology - comment was very helpful and relevant to the AfD, but was not particularly civil toward the nominator. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the feedback I asked for in the very beginning of this Rfa! I wish you (and others, including Drmies above) take my word on that I noted for myself, before this Rfa, being at times too unfriendly at talk pages and too quick with comments at Afd. Also take my word that I am working hard on that and that anyone is welcome to drop a note reminding me I'm getting too rude, no matter this nomination. To your 3 diffs: in first 2 I honestly expressed my personal opinion (granted, quick and not professional). I have read the articles before commenting and replied on the nominations, not at all on the titles (I simply change titles if they are inappropriate). In the third one, the nominator apparently did not know the nominated journal was supported by ISI and Scopus, and I have my doubts many people come to know that such support is the highest privilege a science journal can routinely get. My whole comments reads "I wish the nominator to realize that getting cited by ISI and Scopus is an achievement for a journal (there are serious reviews behind those processes), which automatically makes it notable." - mentoring, yes, but just for the sake of my learning, does anyone think it is uncivil? Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding that last item, I have found that some Wikipedians perceive negative comments to be personal criticism (or even personal attacks) even when the comment is directed at content and not at the author of the content. Seeing how easy it can be to offend people, it's always preferable to present negative comments in an impersonal fashion (if it's possible to do so). In the instance cited, that would be something like: "Getting indexed by ISI and Scopus is an achievement for a journal (there are serious reviews behind those processes), which automatically makes it notable." (Additionally, however, for future reference, be aware that the concept of "automatic" or "inherent" notability is not universally accepted.) --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for personalization note. I knew about "inherent" notability before making that Afd comment, but thought it did not apply there. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I was going to support, but after re-reading candidate's acceptance paragraph, decided not to. It sounds like a request for a review. Bejinhan  Talk   06:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Although I am aware that it does not affect your prospects. I would have supported, because you will be a great admin, and my not doing so will also not affect your chances. Whatever other editors say, you were canvassing; no candidate would send those messages which you unarguably did send if he expected anything other than a support !vote. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:33, 23 October 2009 (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.