User:Tango/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
[ Discuss here] (18/1/1) Ending 12:55, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

, also known by various other pseudonyms, is a law student from Gandhinagar, India and an active Wikipedian since January 2006. Andy (or "Nick", or whatever you want to call him) is a level-headed, intelligent, friendly, and respectful user who has made significant contributions to WikiProject Politics of India, articles on Indian topics (such as Ahmedabad (which was selected as a high quality India-related article), International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (which is has recently undergone peer review), various deletion discussions, and of course, the ongoing struggle against vandalism and POV-pushing at other articles (most notably Narendra Modi). Over these six months, Andy has accumulated over 3,000 edits, and his edit summary usage appears to be 100% or very close thereto. Before entering a knee-jerk oppose vote due to his apparently ridiculous username (believe me, it raised at least one of my eyebrows), consider that he changed it (deliberately to something unpredictable) to avoid off-site scrutiny of his edits by individuals whom he must answer to in real life. I heard it had something to do with Harry Potter, so I didn't ask any more about it. Anyway, yeah, I think he's a rational, qualified candidate. — freak([ talk]) 15:00, Jul. 27, 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

====Support==== ;Support (edit)
 * 1) — freak([ talk]) 15:00, Jul. 27, 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I'm glad that your signature doesn't contain your whole username ;). DarthVad e r 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongest possible support per nom! - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Lost 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Hey, you have a pretty cool name.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've come across NHNick's edits a number of times and have always ben impressed with his knowledge of policy and even-handed civil approach. I believe he'll be a responsible user of the admin tools. Gwernol 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong, strong edit-conflicted support, no questions asked! - Tangot a ngo 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) No-brainer Support --Srikeit (Talk 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support will make a good admin. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always   13:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support: I found him very active. --Bhadani 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support; all my (extensive) dealings with him have lead me to believe he'll make an superb admin. ShaunES 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
 * 13) Support. I've never personally interacted with him, but everything that I've seen would suggest that he is both a great user and a superb future admin. α Chimp   laudare  14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per all above. Roy A.A. 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support Seriously, this is one of a recent rush of great candidates for adminship and I can't see any reason why he won't use the extra buttons to help his own editing as well as Wikipedia at large  hoopydink  Conas tá tú?
 * 16) Oppose. His continued persistance to join the hunt is simply not on. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After been asked by fon to clarify this vote, It's a Harry Potter joke. I'm supporting. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Excellent, trustworthy candidate. Xoloz 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Meets my standards and I have seen this user around Wikipedia. Seems like a very good editor and contributor. -- Tu s  pm (C 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support ~  crazytales 56297   -talk- 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - excellent editor, civil, and helpful. I feel this editor would make good use of admin tools, and be likely to stay active in using them. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, but needs more article namespace edits. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

====Oppose==== ;Oppose (edit)
 * 1) Oppose. This user's past and continuing conduct on RfA gives me serious concerns about how he would actually exercise his duties as an administrator. Rebecca 13:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some diffs to back up your claim? - Tangot a ngo 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

====Neutral==== ;Neutral (edit)
 * 1) I'm not saying he isn't potentially a good admin, but I'm surprised at the low number of article contributions, especially after six months. Am I missing something? Deb 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

====Comments==== ;Comments (edit) Username       Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington Total edits                                3175 Distinct pages edited                      1674 Average edits/page                        1.897 First edit              11:20, January 26, 2006 (main)        1102 Talk           174 User           299 User talk     1014 Image           59 Image talk       3 Template        14 Template talk    2 Wikipedia      489 Wikipedia talk  14 Portal           4 Portal talk      1
 * Output from User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js, as of 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC):


 * See Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

====Questions for the candidate==== ;Questions for the candidate (edit) 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: There are a few areas where the admin tools will help me serve the project better. The admin rollback button would mean faster rollbacks against obvious vandalism, something which I striving against when I compete with Tawkerbot2 and other users/admins (keeping an eye on WP:AIV goes without saying). I would like to help out at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which gets quite loaded up these days. I also like to hang around at Articles for deletion and Miscellany for deletion and would like to close them keeping in view the policies and guidelines (though I'd be careful about them in the beginning). I have also have had some experience with Templates for deletion and Images and media for deletion and would like to chip in there. Plus, I feel that Arbitration Enforcement gets a lot less attention than the administrator noticeboard, I would like to help out there as well.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am proud of my work on International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, an article which took a lot of time for me to create. The article underwent a peer review over the last month and is currently under improvement. I rewrote the Narendra Modi article from scratch, something for which I am proud, because this article is a frequent target for vandalism and POV-pushing. I removed most of the POV contents on the article and used proper citations as per Citing sources and Verifiability. Ahmedabad is another article to which I have significantly contributed to. It is now a selected article on Portal:India and is well on its way to featured status. I also did a lot of research for writing Parikrama and Continuing Mandamus. I am an active user on IRC and help out new users on #wikipedia-bootcamp.


 * 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: Civility has been the key for me. I have been involved in content disputes; and they were all amicably resolved by the means of insightful discussions on talk pages. However, I was once warned by a user for vandalism, but then my edit was endorsed by an administrator who blocked the defaulting user for a 3RR violation. Apart from this, I never had trouble with any other editors.


 * I believe that Wikipedia is an amazing project, and I respect those who are actively involved with it. I wouldn't have been editing wikipedia if it wasn't for the joy that I derieve from it. The day I shall stop enjoying Wikipedia would be the day I stop editing. :) I try to assume good faith with all the editors and they assume good faith with me.