Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nickptar

Nickptar
[ Vote here] (38/2/1) ending 02:23 11 September 2005 (UTC)

- Has been a Wikipedian since March 2005. While Nickptar's contributions are mostly minor, Nickptar's been active in the area of vandal-fighting. Nickptar's dealings with other Wikipedians have been polite, and with no major controversies, as far as I could see. I believe Nickptar would make good use of the extra sysop abilities. --cesarb 02:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Accept. I'm rather surprised that this has come so soon. Regardless of whether or not I pass, I'd appreciate the feedback on my performance. Thank you Cesar. N (t/c) 02:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support of course. --cesarb 02:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems like a fine candidate to me Ryan Norton T 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Actually thought he was an admin already. Andre ( talk ) 02:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. 'Nother good one. Dmcdevit·t 02:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support this maker of sensible comments— encephalon |  &zeta;   03:35:34, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
 * 7) Support though we've disagreed at times, I support N unconditionally. He would be an incredible admin. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with pleasure. I've seen Nick get involved in a few conduct- or block-related issues (to help out, not as the object of them), and he's invariably civil, reasonable, and insightful. He'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9)   Journalist  C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 10) Support with ease, I know he'll make a good admin -- Joolz 15:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2005-09-4 17:34
 * 12) Support, good vandal fighter. the wub  "?/!"  17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support; would make a great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, judging by other's comments, he'll be a good admin. Plus anyone who mistakes me for an admin and runs for an admin himself is a good candidate to vote for. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Good at making his points civilly/calmly. FreplySpang (talk) 20:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I have disagreed with Nick on more than one occasion. However he never seems to freak out on people or lose his cool. He's a great guy. Good luck to you Nick. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Phroziac  ( talk ) 21:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, will make an excellent admin. - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  23:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support; good candidate. Antandrus  (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Plenty of great work. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Excellent editor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Great editor. Meets my guidelines. android  79  19:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support no reservations whatsoever. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. (Insert superlative here.) Flowerparty 06:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Give the man the flamethrower rollback button! --Tito xd 06:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support --AllyUnion (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) SUPPORT  V.   Molotov  [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]   15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. El_C 23:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Fine vandal-fighter. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Yup, this is a Support. Func( t, c, @,) 17:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Upport-say. – Bratsche talk 21:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. -- DS1953 05:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Fine candidate, seen lots of examples of his work. Alf melmac 22:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support... so heavy... can barely... lift. -- BD2412 talk 23:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support You mean he isn't an Admin now? But, but, I was listening to him because I thought he WAS one already! Uncle Ed 01:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Weird, I thought I already voted to support, but seeing as I apparently haven't, I may as well do so now!  --Alan Au 07:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support I've seen his bot at work a number of times, always doing great work. Jacoplane 09:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) i don't know this user, but based on my experiences with people elevated to authority, just this single edit portends a potentially abusive admin. was frankly shocked to see this sort of wannabe-cop remark in a wikipedia article. it's not in line with normal administration behavior here. suggest a year or so for seasoning. SaltyPig 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a new idea; for a time, there was a much stronger one at the top of George W. Bush (and that one was added by an administrator, AFAIK). There was also one at the top of Gay Nigger Association of America. And that's only the ones I know of. --cesarb 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "And that's only the ones I know of"? let the vote go down already; you don't need to run interference with a broom. i'm guessing the result won't be too scary for ya if you sit back. SaltyPig 06:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I would like to hear why you made this accusation of sockpuppetry against, who has made no contributions since april 2002. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Unintentionally - I meant, who seems far too familiar with WP process and Toby for a new user, and whose first few edits are... quite strange. N (t/c) 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That user is obviously SPUI having some fun. Just look at the VfD comment he made. --cesarb 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments Questions for the candidate
 * Kate's tool says: 2251 edits on 1081 articles, 853 of the edits being on the article namespace. --cesarb 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, his bot has made 1002 edits, 873 to articles. the wub   "?/!"  17:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? I thought you were just on requests for bureaucratship? But you're not an admin yet? -- Phroziac  ( talk ) 21:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, you must be confusing me with . N (t/c) 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, i did. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Phroziac  ( talk ) 01:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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. The usual - closing VfDs, blocking vandals. I would especially focus on patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - I find that obvious speedies can stay in there for hours.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My janitorial bot, which seems to be working fairly well and led to my receiving a Janitorial Services Medal. I have no substantive article contributions to be pleased with, but am proud of all of my cleanup, vandalfighting, and discussion.
 * 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. Talk:Otherkin, Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon, and Wikipedia talk:Toby (if that counts) are the biggies. I've been watching Gabrielsimon (now Gavin the Chosen) for a long time, and have contributed to the RfC and RfAr against him. These have all led to minor stress. I try to remain reasonable and argue for NPOV, NOR, verifiability, and consensus. All of those conflicts, plus a few more minor ones, have all helped me in understanding how to see others' POVs and try to mediate.
 * 4. What is your threshold for deleting in closing a VfD? (added because I know this is a big issue)
 * A. 75-80%. May vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the people and arguments involved. I will try not to close VfDs on which I have a strong opinion.