Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Physchim62

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

Physchim62

edit

Final (40/0/0) ended 15:53 2005-11-06 (UTC)

Physchim62 (talk · contribs) (self-nomination)—I am celebrating six months on wikipedia and my 6000th edit by requesting adminship. Most of my work is centered around WikiProject Chemicals and Pages needing translation into English: this rarely needs admin powers, but I would still like to move on to the point of responding to requests for assistance rather than originating them. Physchim62 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - looks like a solid contributor to me. --Celestianpower háblame 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FireFox 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support PC has become a mainstay of the chemistry pages. He contributes excellent content, has a very strong chemistry knowledge, but also manages to understand technical aspects of the wiki software. He has already done a lot of fantastic cleanup work in stubs and categories. Disagreements with others have generally been minor and handled very diplomatically, yet his view has often prevailed. I only hope that he doesn't leave chemistry to spend his life tracking sockpuppets...! Walkerma 16:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support because the temperature has just gone above -20C. CambridgeBayWeather 16:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support at standard temperature and pressure. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Everything looks good. Sango123 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A mainstay of Translation to English, multilingual and not dead-serious all the time. Definite pick. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  8. Support, I have confidence that this user will not abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. A good knowledgeable contribuant to Wikipedia. Wim van Dorst 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seriously thought you were one. (RFA cliché no. 1) Work on PNT is invaluable. Dmcdevit·t 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I was thinking of nominating this user just today coincidentally :-) - Physchim62 makes Wikipedia a comfortable place to contribute material. A valuable member of the community who could really make good use of the administrative toolset. --HappyCamper 21:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. El_C 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Good experiences with this user. It's a shame about the other 61 psyschims, though :) Radiant_>|< 00:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear he killed them all off, one by one, for revenge. Dmcdevit·t 07:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support 82.26.172.175 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Pilatus 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Looks good.--Sean Black | Talk 03:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No reason to think he might abuse his superpowers. —Cryptic (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. H Padleckas 05:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. We need more multi-babel admins.Lectonar 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support en petit-nègre. Dlyons493 Talk 12:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, great contributions. --Kefalonia 15:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --JAranda | watz sup 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Sound candidate. Alf melmac 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, the editor has done an excellent work over at PNT — where I have personally interacted with him on occasion — and I trust that he will make good use of sysop rights. I would have nominated him myself. --Sn0wflake 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. S'port and what I want to know is, why the hell did he have to resort to a self-nomination! Doc (?) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Borb 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Contributions look good, no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Private Butcher 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Vsmith 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I generally dont support self noms but this user is more than qualified.  ALKIVAR™  04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I 33rd this nomination whole-heartedly. ~K 19:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. SupportJohann Wolfgang 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support! ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. The Minister of War(Peace) 07:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support if he tells me what is the pressure of 3.02 mols of carbon dioxide in a closed cylinder with a volume of 2.34 litres at STP. ;) Titoxd(?!?) 05:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's at STP, then the pressure is obviously 100 kPa: however, the gas constant in this parallel universe would be 3.525 J·K−1·mol−1 (as opposed to 8.314 J·K−1·mol−1 in the more conventional universe which we know and love). At 25 °C, 3.02 mol CO2 in a volume of 2.34 L exerts a pressure of approx. 27.8 bar (from the Van der Waals equation). Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 08:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay! I was trying to see if you would fall for it and use the Ideal gas law. :) Titoxd(?!?) 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    See this link... Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 11:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support on account of his answer to the overspecified chemistry problem :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. -- DS1953 talk 05:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Am I the last? --Bhadani 10:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'm not sure that anticipate is the correct verb for this question. I anticipate going on RC-patrol by editing a few chemistry articles...
I expect to help out on closing AfDs, as I think it is important for the debates to be resolved as soon as possible after the five-day period. This is a service which admins provide to other users who have taken the time and effort to bring these articles up for debate and to give their views on them. WP:CP and WP:RM are two other pages with backlogs where sysop powers are necessary to provide the service to other users, and I would envisage helping out here as well.
I go on RC-patrol occasionally, but I do not find it particularly rewarding—I prefer working a little further down the chain at WP:PNT or Category:Chemistry stubs where I have the time to consider my edits rather than acting in the emrgency. That being said, chemistry articles are not immune from vandalism, and I keep my eyes open for attacks that come that way.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Ammonia is an article which has taken a lot of my WikiEnergy, to bring it up from a level where it was mostly taken from the 1911 Britannica to a point where it is reasonably comprehensive (although there are still some supporting articles to write). Otherwise, I am working on the translation of de:Alkane to Alkane, which will hopefully provide a model for other functional group articles. I am also helping out on the two chemistry-related peer reviews at the moment, acetic acid and Raney nickel.
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. The ambiance is pretty good both at WP:Chem and at WP:PNT, so I am lucky to have escaped serious edit conflicts. The worst to date concerned the presentation of data on paracetamol, where a fellow editor wished to standardise it with other chemicals pages, whereas I felt it was better left standardised with other drugs articles. The question of how to present information is difficult because it is so often subjective; the only solution appears to be plenty of kB on talk pages (article and user) to try to reach consensus, and a good dose of tolerance and respect for other editors.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Physchim62&oldid=1258076775"