Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nichalp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nichalp

Vote here

(14/2/1) ends 14:55 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nichalp has been here for several months and has around 956 edits in the main namespace. Among other edits, he has made valuable contributions to India related pages, always gets into constructive dialogue when points of view differ and generates goodwill. This along with his consistency would make him a good administrator. KRS 12:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks KRS, I accept. About the 956 figure: I devote just 2 hours daily online, in which I also read the news, check email, chat & surf the net. Hence to get a higher figure (2,000 for blankfaze) will take some time to achieve. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Note:As on 22nd September number of main name space edits is 1153 and total number of edits is 1712. KRS 02:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. KRS
  2. Gzornenplatz 18:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —Morven 19:26, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) Seems to be good at working with others for consensus and improvement.
  4. ugen64 00:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Two featured articles in about 1000 edits is indeed impressive. Appears to interact well with other users and will probably serve well as a sysop. -- Grunt   ҈  17:02, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
  6. ed g2s • talk 03:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) So far, so good.
  7. Yes. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. David Remahl 19:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Nicholas is very good in English. Also, he got exceptional patience to explain petty obvious facts in talk page to convince ignorants. Let the world be benefitted more out of his work. --Rrjanbiah 05:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. squash 11:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) I support Nichalp because of his quality of edits not considering the treshold of becoming a Wikipedia sysop is around 2000 and 3 months, as it balances out each other. Nice work... Nichalp, hope you can work on other articles to make them feature articles... :-) also your knowledge of India is very valuable.
  12. I'm moving to support. --MerovingianѤTalk 15:36, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  13. –Andre (talk) 21:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. -- orthogonal 03:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Netoholic @ 21:56, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) -- Too few edits, and a very narrow scope. We just haven't seen enough of him to know what he'd do with it. Adminship is more than just "reverting vandalised edits in a single switch" on your favorite articles.
  2. Lowellian 16:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) Too few edits.

Neutral

  1. Lst27 00:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) Not enough edits.
  • User:Merovingian (moved to Support)

Comments

I assume KRS intends to vote in support too? :-) — David Remahl 19:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming that, the toctally is at 4/1/0 now. ugen64 00:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I have added my name KRS 14:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WRT Netoholic's comments, I feel that though each person is free to have their own standards in terms of number of edits for an admin, I don't think its fair to comment on the scope of a Wikipedian's contribution. KRS 14:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not? — David Remahl 19:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A pertinent discussion here. KRS 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As far as the 'scope' is concerned, I disagree that it should be made a negative point. Although I contribute related articles to three main topics, this does not mean that I am in anyway less qualified to contribute FA articles in electronics, computers and physics among others. I'm not bound to any 'favourite' articles, I also read varied topics and contribute nuggets of info if possible, or add a post on its talk page for others to clarify ambigious statements. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, the namespace edits are about 1,000; other edits exceed 2,000. It is slightly on the lower side as I use my word processor to edit articles and further use the preview button before saving the page, thereby bypassing typos etc. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes, I have.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes, I am already involved in regular maintainence. For brevity sake, I won't mention it here.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I watch the India page (among others) which attracts a lot of vandalism. This is a thankless job, but I don't mind. If an editor should ask me for my opinion, I make it a point to reply. Regarding the other benefits of an admin, I don't think I'll be using the SQL querying, but I'll be looking forward to deleting some junk.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I rewrote the Cricket and India pages from ground up, and sucessfully saw them through to be elevated as a Featured Article. However, my most satisfying article has been the Indian numbering system, as I sniffed up some rare and forgotten data.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I have categorised many articles, dealing with Mumbai and Cricket. I now am currently working on cricket sub-categories. I also revert a lot of vandalism, move pages, disambiguate terms, upload some of my created images, as well as seeing that main pages are below 30kb.
6. 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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I have been involved in three so far. If I believe I am right and have a valid reason, I stick to my guns and provide references to support my view. However, if my opposite provides a sufficient reason for his/her stance and I think s/he, has a point, I do not pursue the matter. It is a stressful job no doubt, reading the negative comments; but thankfully it does not last very long.