Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Physicq210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Physicq210

Final (53/6/0) Ended Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:38:41 (UTC)

Physicq210 (talk · contribs) – I just ran into Physicq210 in a contentious situation regarding a widely used template, which could have quickly escalated into an issue. His handling of this situation impressed me, so I poked around into his contribution history. Turns out he's been busily reverting vandalism, tagging speediable pages, and acted as mediator in at least one Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal case. His first edit was nearly a year ago; he's been quite active since about May. I'm happy to nominate him. Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and graciously accept this nomination. --210physicq (c) 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: If given admin tools, I would most likely employ them in new page patrol and clearing out backlogs in CAT:CSD, combating vandalism through reverting, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and other means as the community would want an admin to do, protecting pages as needed at WP:RFPP when circumstances warrant, closing of WP:AFD and related discussions and deleting articles when directed to by community consensus, clearing out backlogs in CAT:PROD, and other tasks as voiced by the community at WP:AN, WP:ANI, and other channels of community discourse.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My proudest (although definitely not the brightest) achievement on a single article to date would most likely be San Francisco International Airport, where cleanup over the course of months eventually brought it up to GA status. I occasionally still work with the article as new information reaches my hands.
Another achievement that I am particularly pleased is related to the (nearly) single-handed mass-move of the Nevada state highway articles as stipulated by the naming conventions poll. Over the course of 2-3 days, all the existing articles were moved and around two-thirds of the necessary redirects were created in this marathon.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I usually avoid edit conflicts with other editors prefering voicing our opinions on talkpages and other avenues of discussion to come to a compromise. In these discussions, I try my best to tone down rhetoric on my side to provide an atmosphere of cordial discourse to come to a consensus.
However, I have been engaged (sometimes unwittingly) in long-drawn conflicts that take up multiple archives on talkpages, most recently the ugly and bloody state naming conventions poll that threatened to pull apart the community at the seams, or as it seemed. While attempting with others to hammer out a set convention to lay to rest months of flaring conflict, I attempted to tone down tempers on both sides (often to no avail, but with sporadic successes) and try not completely favor one side or another, instead broadening my mind to see positives on both sides of the debate, and attempting to reconcile the two seemingly antagonistic camps.
About my present and future dealings with stress, I usually try to avoid situations where debilitating stress will be overwhelming, or threaten to overwhelm me, and will continue to do so unless circumstances warrant. Stress is part of every admin's (and/or editor's) life on Wikipedia, whether self-imposed, subtle, or any adjective that may come to mind, and like any other obstacle can be dealt with with optimism and high self-esteem in one's work.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A: An established user should be blocked only when his or her actions have become detrimental not only to the encyclopedia but to the community in general. Besides the implementation of ArbCom blocking/banning decisions, a block should only be applied upon an established user if community consensus on WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:3RR, or any similar channel dictates it. Unilateral blocking will not do anyone any good, and will serve to be a spark that will divide the community unless emergency circumstances (which are few and extremely far between) necessitate such a drastic and unfortunate measure. As it is often said, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and should be used as such.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: WP:IAR basically stipulates (I know, it's like word-for-word) that if the rules constrict your ability to improve the encyclopedia, then ignore them. To me, this policy is telling us to relax and not get so wrapped up in rules and our efforts to conform to them. It allows for different interpretations for the same rule/policy/guideline/whatever (it allows for a "gray area" in rules, if you may), which, when combined, results in less rigidity of Wikipedia (and smothers the phenomenon of wikilawyering) and allows for deliberate ambiguity which healthily promotes the encyclopedia when used in the right context. For an example of "deliberate ambiguity," try defining "consensus" in definite terms.
WP:SNOW stipulates (almost verbatim) that if a result will not have any chance of coming to fruition, then there is no point trying to force the issue through a process that will not give the desired result anyway. In other words, if you know that an article containing a random series of letters (i.e. jakgnvklandb) fits the speedy deletion criteria, there is absolutely no point to run it through the AfD process. An obvious keep or delete of an article on AfD, an obvious vandal that must be stopped, or anything similar invokes WP:SNOW and allows for a quick resolution to often-ridiculous and nonsensical processes. Most importantly, it keeps Wikipedia from being bogged down in a bureaucratic quagmire and allow it to use common sense instead of focusing on process, process, and more process.

Questions from MJCdetroit stolen borrowed from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

6. You find out that an editor, who's well known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A: In such a case, I would submit a report to WP:AN, WP:ANI and (unless already verified) to WP:RFCU, and wait for community consensus (in the case of WP:ANI) to form about what to do with said user. While submitting my findings and defending my opinion, I will respect whatever decision the Wikipedia community decides upon despite my misgivings. I dislike acting unilaterally unless under exceptional circumstances, and desire outside imput and advice from other, potentially more experienced, editors and admins.
7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A: I would want to change the atmosphere around polls/votes/[insert noun here] like RfA, AfD, and related subjects. All too often, people used such channels for spewing suppressed emotions of long-forgotten debates or exchanges, heatingly exchange negative rhetoric, and, abhorrently, exacting revenge due to an obscure and often-misperceived action in the long distant past. I wish for editors to come into the room and be cordial in their discourse. Debate is beneficial when the atmosphere is calm and civility reigns high.
8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A: It depends on how long the user has been in Wikipedia. If it is an account that is vandalism--only or has a username violating WP:USERNAME, then indefblocks can be applied without much controversy unless an admin or an editor in good standing objects. However, if the person is an established user, then community consensus must first be formed regarding the editor's conduct before indefinitely blocking, as such blocks are extremely controversial if applied unilaterally.
9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A: Upon such controversial circumstances, there are several courses of action, each to be taken when circumstances warrant. The default would be to apply the notion of presumption of innocence and close the discussion as "no consensus," which defaults to "keep." If I am thoroughly convinced that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry has been used (and it is extremely hard to convince me of such), and the suspicion of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is supported by other admins and editors of good standing, then I will close the AfD as "delete." However, the bar of deletion in such cases will be set high, to err on the side of caution.
10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A: A minimum number is necessary in the cases of controversial AfDs, RfDs, and CfDs, with "controversial" defined as those that fall in the gray area of notability, verifiability, and sourcing, with the number most likely falling between 18-20+. In the cases of unanimous or near-unanimous consensus, then no number is necessary; however, usually I will close a discussion with more than 5 comments unless it is an obvious speedy keep or speedy delete.

Question from Polaron (talk · contribs)

11. Per WP:SPAM#Canvassing, The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. What is your view on the dividing line between light cross-posting and excessive cross-posting? If you were asked to rule on the particular case of the recent San Francisco move mentioned below (see here for more information), would you rule that there has been vote stacking or not?
A: This might be an extremely controversial opinion, but it is my belief that canvassing of any form should be avoided as much as possible. Cross-posting only serves to skew the vote to one way or another, no matter how subtle the shift of opinion. Without canvassing, at least a more random probability (but not absolute random probability) in the poll, and a truly representative opinion of the community can form. However, I'm not saying that I will put my foot down on suspected "cross-posting" and act like a fool about it. Regarding the San Francisco requested move, I would say that yes, it was canvassing biased toward support, but on the "count" of vote-stacking, I will admit that I was wrong, eat my own words (many thanks to Serge and Polaron for pointing out the truth and facts to me), and say that it was not vote-stacking, as opposing votes were also solicited and the person canvassing for votes admitted to the actions and stopped. This opinion may be quite vague, and I am willing to elaborate on any gray areas.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Definitely. Have seen him around. Good editor. – Chacor 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Looks great -  Mike | trick or treat  03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support—Rather like the technical orientation; might have liked more contributions & edits, but okay... Overall meets my criteria. Will make sound Admin. Williamborg (Bill) 03:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support: Should make a good one. Experience in mediation should be a bonus. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 04:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support (duh). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support--MONGO 04:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks perfectly competent as an editor; I don't believe that the tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Mhmm. T REXspeak 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support seems to be a great editor who can certainly be trusted with the buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, absolutely. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - impressed by answers to questions. Looks a valuable addition to the admin ranks. --Dweller 11:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support —You've done your homework and done it well. I see no reason not to support your bid. —MJCdetroit 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, sounds like a voice of reason and a level head. Good answers to the questions. Doc ♬ talk 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support an excellent editor. Rama's arrow 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Ligulem 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Sure, why not? >Radiant< 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support leaning to strong support. Answers denote maturity and profound knowledge of the functioning of Wikipedia.--Húsönd 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per nom. Michael 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support worked on a MedCab case with him, a very sensible editor Addhoc 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. No concerns. Will be a good admin. Nephron  T|C 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Great user with good answers to the questions, will make a good use of the tools. Hello32020 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. John Anderson 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. I've never encountered this user before but on the strength of the answers I am in total support. Then checked his/her user page -- 11th grade! I'm even more impressed. Dina 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Physics Student Support. Seen this user around. A good thinker and hard worker. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support great answers, and all the signs of a good sysop, TewfikTalk 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong support Came out as a leader in WP:SRNC, helped keep things tidy, good user all around, stayed civil in heated discussion. --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschen7754 (talk • contribs)
  33. Bay Area Support ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Seems conscientious --Mcginnly | Natter 12:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support excellent editor, superb answers.-- danntm T C 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - very good answers, seems nice and determined. NCurse work 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. A user with opinions, not all of them shared by me, but solid experience and unquestionably well intentioned all leads to my support. Themindset 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - this user's valuable (and vast) contributions to Wikipedia say it all. Also, this user's leadership throughout a contentious WP:SRNC impressed me personally. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Invaluable to Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - we need more hands at CAT:CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Yeah, yeah, why not? The Oppose vote doesn't faze me. Charlie MacKenzie 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support I don't support "per nom", but in this case the nominator has said everything perfectly. It says something that this user did not nominate themselves and has been productive for so long. I reject the rational behind the oppose votes. -- RM 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Disagree with the oppose votes, so supporting here. People Powered 03:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Good answers to the (remarkably long list of) questions --- Deville (Talk) 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Long history of positive contributions. As an aside, I note that I am troubled by the number of oppose votes – on this and other RFAs – by participants in the Great Highway Naming Dispute. I would have thought that those individuals would have been so embarrassed by their overwrought reaction to a petty issue that they would prefer not to dredge it up again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Strong support. Excellent editor I have worked with on a number of airport articles including San Francisco International Airport, very level-headed in contentious situations. --MCB 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Pile-on support per others. 1ne 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Seems like a good editor, though I would recommend a quick refresher course in things like CSD, as I have had to remind him of some policies recently. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Seen him around quite a few times and he has impressed me with his good contributions. Wikipediarules2221 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. He is a good editor, and provided good answers in my opinion. --Esteban F. (con.) 00:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive2#People commenting when voting. User believes that comments left next to "votes" such as those used in just about every process I can think of right now, including AfD (and every other *fD), RfA, DRV, RM, etc, etc are bad and should even be removed. This is a complete perversion of everything that Wikipedia's idea of consensus stands for and it is very possible that this user's beliefs will bias him when closing discussions in these processes. This means that this user may misuse admin tools, and should not be granted the +sysop. --Rory096 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    The specific rule for the WP:SRNC was no comments. I know because I personally instated that rule. Your distortion of what happened does not disqualify Physicsq210 from being an admin. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell from reading that conversation, that rule was instated after a poll. In this poll, Physics, among others, voted to instate this rule, showing that this is what he believes should be right. I'm not disputing that the rule didn't exist in SRNC, I'm saying that he helped to create that rule. If I'm wrong on that, please tell me. --Rory096 15:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    I find this comment extremely hard to swallow, as it provides a narrow and distorted view of what I believe, hence it merits a response. No, I believe that comments should be allowed on RfAs, AfDs, etc. The rule that you mention was not instated after the poll, see this diff. This addition was made before the poll and was supported by other editors. And your comment, "showing that this is what he believes should be right" is generalizing a onetime exception as a blanket but false characterization of my opinion, and, at best, putting words in my mouth. --210physicq (c) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Very well then, I only said what seemed to be in that section. What are your beliefs on comments next to votes, and if you support them, then why was SRNC an exception? --Rory096 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    As I have stated above, I believe that comments should be allowed on RfAs, AfDs, and the like because there is no other place to comment on. On WP:SRNC, you had all the space you want to discuss about your thoughts and opinions above the voting section, and hence this exception/rule was instated. However, this is only one of the many reasons that the rule was put into effect; arguments regarding this are listed at the poll regarding this exception. --210physicq (c) 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    So when there's another space to discuss, "votes" in a different section from the discussion section should not have comments next to them? I'm seeing arguments for this, (like "it irks me," "who goes into the polling station at elections and talks to the voting machine before casting their vote?" "it annoys me that I can't have a rebuttal," "it's not like they're meant for actual discussion," "campaigning at the ballot box," "It's a rule," and that I "tained [sic] the voting pool" when I did use a comment, and that's every argument I saw in the section.), but I still don't understand why you don't think it applies to RfAs and AfDs, except that those don't have separate sections for discussion (though RfA does, does that mean the s/o/n sections should be pure votes?). Besides that, I don't really understand what reason there is for you supporting this on SRNC and not everywhere else, as you just say that that's one of many reasons but don't give any other reasons. This reason alone doesn't make me feel sure that you don't think pure votes should be counted any less than votes with reasons, which makes me unsure that you wouldn't do things like counting "'''Delete''' --~~~~" on AfD. --Rory096 02:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    You are turning an consensually agreed-upon exception into a broad generalization, an argument in which I have already refuted above. No, I do and will take comments next to votes on RfAs, AfDs, etc. into account, as it helps me formulate a sense of the community's ideas. I do have to admit that the decision to support the rule was not the best or most thought-out decision I ever made; however, I stand by this one as it was necessary because the comments would only serve to turn the voting section into another discussion section, which would complicate matters. These positions are not mutually contradictory, but I respect and appreciate your opinion and willingness to discuss. --210physicq (c) 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not really worried that you won't take comments on AfDs into account, but I am worried that you'd count non-commenting "votes" far more heavily than they should be. How do we know that you won't do that, since you clearly (to me) think that they are OK, since you articulated your opinion that there should be an entire section devoted to them (as long as there's a discussion section, of course)? I too am glad that you're willing to discuss, rather than call me incivil or something, which seems to be happening far too much lately on anything that even touches SRNC. --Rory096 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I see. I did not say that there should be an entire section devoted to them; the section was already there to begin with in SRNC, which is often not the case for anything else. Regarding your concern about me taking "votes" without comments too heavily, I would lean more heavily on "votes" with rational opinions and/or justifications than on others, due to those showing me that the editors espousing such comment have done their research. I hope this clarifies matters. And yes, I deplore the fact the the subject of SRNC gets extremely touchy; please see my answer to question #7 above. --210physicq (c) 02:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    At highways, ewe've had a bad record with incivil comments when voting, and with comments being mixed with votes leaving a mess. I wanted something that was clean and that was neutral, so I put that rule in. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. My standards for adminship vary wildly, and are based mainly on the phase of the moon and my current weight in drams. In this instance, a random walk through the contributions has given me pause:
    • This is ancient, from July, I know. I don't know how mediators normally talk but I'd hate for "Therefore, [user], do NOT [perform action] until I have deemed [it acceptable], and only if I recommend it," to be the manner an admin communicated with a user.
    • This also I found odd. Both for the (possibly true) complaint about "bureaucracy" but more becuase there was quite a bit that he could have done. This was the other user's initial request, this was Physicq210's response.
    • Finally this very recent one doesn't sit well with me, the other user was pretty clearly being nice, and Physicq210's "dude chill" probably wouldn't have worked even if he was not.
    It's all very random, but combined with the "vote don't talk" section above (which I understand was for specific reasons and well intentioned but that I believe woefully anti-wiki) I must oppose. - brenneman {L} 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm perfectly happy to have a long string lambasting me. Talk is good.
  3. Candidate's "vote don't talk" beliefs are ludicrous. Cannot trust him to consider the actual merits of an argument rather than letting a debate be compromised by numerical mobs. Roughly two-thirds of his user_talk edits consist of issuing impersonal templates to impersonal IP addresses. Remarkably little interaction with serious users outside of WP:SRNC, does not seem to be a "people person" at all. Oppose for adminship, might recommend a job with the Broward County Canvassing Board. —freak(talk) 19:26, Oct. 13, 2006 (UTC)
    It was me who implemented that "votes don't talk" idea, okay? Also, and this holds true with the next vote too: I find it odd to see that the both of you are still upset about the outcome of WP:SRNC- since you were on opposite sides. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    You may have implemented, but he definitely supported it wholeheartedly. Also, I find it odd how you're "taking the blame" for this to bring it off of the candidate. And the latter part of your comment doesn't make sense, I'm happy with the turnout at SRNC and I still think that the candidate's actions during this process were far less than admin-like. --Rory096 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    He kept it neat and tidy, you have to admit. And he was definitely not the only one to support it- a judging admin (Ashibaka I think) was one of the major supporters of it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not saying he was the only one. I wouldn't support any other of those peoples' RfAs because of this (unless there were circumstances that strongly pointed to them being a good admin anyway), and just because an admin supported it doesn't mean it's right or good. Admin's opinions don't count for more than regular users'. --Rory096 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    For my response the already-discredited "vote-don't-talk" argument, see above. --210physicq (c) 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. "Out of retirement" oppose per Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive3#What is the point here?: "If we were to leave the New Jersey highway naming convention as it is now, in the future, someone may use the "exception" as an example of the "uselessness" of whatever convention comes out of this and we'll just be back at square 1. --physicq210" Admins should support consensus, not the imposition of a foolish consistency. --SPUI (T - C) 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    At WP:ANI many admins upheld consensus. Also, they threatened to block anyone who argued that there was no consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying he'd fit in with other admins because he would block people who argued that there wasn't consensus in something? --Rory096 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    No, I'm saying that that view is shared by many admins and ArbCom and should not reflect poorly on the candidate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. His comments on a recent requested move at San Francisco show he has strong inclinations for "rules lawyering", which is something that I think disqualifies him from being an admin. His reason for opposing the move is becaue it doesn't follow the US city naming guidelines[1]. One of the major reasons was that San Francisco was an internationally known city and did not need to be disambiguated so can be an exception from the guideline. Inflexible adherence to a guideline is not a good trait for an admin. He seems to be of the position that Wikipedia should be prescriptive rather than being descriptive. For example he opposes any city renaming requests unless the guideline is changed first[2]. But in that poll, nobody is advocating for a change in guideline that will "change everything"[3]. He also tried to get the poll nullifed early on when the votes were against his preference[4]. (The vote eventually ended up as no consensus). My observation from this is that he likes rules and likes to enforce them with no exceptions -- something that Wikipedia is not. This plus his creation of the rule of no discussion when voting at WP:SRNC [5] (something against Wikipedia principles) lead me to oppose making him an admin. --Polaron | Talk 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    "His"? I created that guideline, for the 5th time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Per this, he was the first one to state that discussions should be placed in a separate section from the voting. --Polaron | Talk 04:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm searching through the diffs to find my earlier diff of proposing this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Aha. I figured out what happened. I meant for the votes to be without comments (and I may have posted that somewhere, but if I did, I just can't find it in the mess of like 500+ diffs). I meant it since that is how I structured the poll. Remember... one section for discussion only... another section for the votes? And discussion starting a week early... And even if (supposedly) I didn't structure it that way... it was supported at the talk page Wikipedia_talk:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/archive2 by supporters on both sides. I'll keep looking for the diff though because I'm really sure I said something to that effect... I mean I meant a lot of things at the poll that weren't clearly expressed (such as the poll's intent to apply to all 50 states) so that could be it too... how strange. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding your reason for opposing my RfA due to the San Francisco, California article RM, many editors also opposed your move, and there were flying accusations (and substantial proof) of votestacking on your side that were eased (and eventually put to rest) after Serge Issakov admitted it and pledged to stop, an apology I and others accepted. Note that I am not a wikilawyer; Serge was trying to move enough articles to provide "proof" later on to gut the entire convention. If it would not be a potential violation of WP:POINT, I don't know what is. I'm very sorry if I sound this defensive, but I am also providing the other side of the story that seems to be left out of your analysis. --210physicq (c) 04:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    See question #11 above. --Polaron | Talk 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have replied to your question (11 questions?! What was the record?). Feel free to ask me to elaborate if needed. --210physicq (c) 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per review on contributions and per Brenneman. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.