Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nichalp

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

Nichalp

edit

Final: (46/4/3) Ended 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp (talk · contribs)

I hope three's not a crowd. I've been thinking of nominating myself for the past four days, and to my surprise two people have applied for the post. (telepathy?) I have been an admin for 11 months now and I've faithfully used all my admin powers to good use. I've deleted content, protected pages, carried out requested moves, merged histories, blocked vandals, and effected rollbacks. I've used all the special tools that admins have and I would like to be of more use to the community as a bureaucrat. I've noticed a few people (two people I've closely been associated with) who would like to change their username and their cases were pending for quite some months. With Cecropia on holiday soon, and Raul and Angela already extremely overworked, I'd wish to lighten their burden in the renaming department.

As for me, I'm in the quality control department, so you'd see me mostly in FAC, FLC, and PR. I have chosen to focus my edits mainly to India-related articles, and occasionally cricket-related topics. Since Feb this year, I've contributed 500+ photos/maps/sounds (exclusive videos coming in Oct/Nov) to commons. I've also helped 18 19 20 articles/lists/images to featured quality (two one more are is in queue). +1 more!

I'm approaching my 10,000th edit crossed! (& 5,000 to article crossed), and I hope both coincide with this event. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Harro5 08:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC). I'll start the ball rolling. Nichalp seems to be trying to do everything on Wikipedia - he's an active admin, and he also has a new India-related FAC every week. A great admin and a first-rate contributor. Good luck!
  2. Sundar \talk \contribs 08:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Harro5 beat me in this vote. Have worked closely with this user on many India-related articles. Very sensible, knows the wiki system well, quality contributor, great admin, and occasionally shown his mediation skills.
  3. Support I see you a lot around WP:RFA, always making useful comments when you vote. You have good judgement/judgment (depending on which way you want to spell it), which will be useful as a bureaucrat. Acetic Acid (talk) 12:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (t) (c) 13:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. I have a feeling that becoming a bureaucrat has just become a little bit more possible ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. One of the best. Dmcdevit·t 16:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Sure. Andre (talk) 20:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Thoughtful and reasonable answers below; seems on an even keel. – Friejose 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Nice answer to first neutral voter too Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good editor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - meets my standards and I see no reason to oppose. Keep it up! --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - nice history as an admin. Well worth being made a bureaucrat. - ulayiti (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support- this great editor and great admin would make a great bureaucrat. (Oh, did I mention he's great?) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - a thoughtful admin. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support- Very helpful editor, and good answers; still owes me a picture on the shoe polish article though. Proto t c 09:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, changed from neutral. On re-reading Nichalp's answers to my questions, I'm happy that he'll not simply disregard votes he disagrees with and will make a good bureaucrat. Though I would urge him to accept everyone's bars to a supportive RfA vote, whether he personally agrees with them or not. The promise to discuss controversial RfAs with other 'crats is an important one. -Splash 13:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Nothing more to add :-) Tintin 14:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Contributes widely across the breadth of Wikipedia. --Ngb ?!? 14:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Theo (Talk) 16:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I am comfortable with what I have seen of your edit history and your answers to the questions posed below. Dragons flight 19:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. ral315 03:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support because if he doesn't qualify, I'm not sure who would. ;) --Alan Au 09:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: I am just a 5-month old wikipedian, but I have been seeing him around from the beginning of my wiki-career . Almost everything has been said about his work here, and I have nothing more to add. I am sure that he is capable of functioning as a bureaucrat and share the responsibility with existing bureaucrats. --Bhadani 15:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, and if we expand bcrat powers even more, I'm sure you'd do just fine with those too. - Taxman Talk 15:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support I am greatly impressed by his work on FAC and India-related articles in particular. From what I've seen of his interaction with the community, I believe him to be level-headed and fair, and I feel confident these qualities will continue if he achieves bureaucratship. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Nichalp is a nice chap, and I strongly support him for bureaucratship, he is an efficent editor and a guiding light for many users including me.--Cyril Thomas 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. Nichalp has been a great admin and contributor and has always been very helpful and nice (he's even wished me happy birthday, though 2 months in advance).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I think he is really well suited for the job. Guettarda 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - nice guy, deserves the reward.  ALKIVAR™  16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, great contributor, editor, and very neutral. --Ragib 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Sam Hocevar 17:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support-Its hard not to notice the work he does around Wikipedia, an excellent contributor and an asset to the community. --Gpyoung talk 18:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support-I agree with Gyyoung. Falphin 20:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Excellent candidate. Flowerparty 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --{{IncMan|talk}} 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  39. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  40. Support Tuf-Kat 00:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support Jisha C J 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I almost missed this! Squash 08:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as per above. --Alcidebava 10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Highly efficient and active editor --Sarathtly 15:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, sure, why not. More bureaucrats can't hurt. — JIP | Talk 08:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good man.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  11:45:13, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose on grounds that I am hardly familiar with him (and, given that I know most of the adminship candidates that's not really a good sign as to his visiblity). I'll admit he looks competent enough. Radiant_>|< 07:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: we've crossed paths once: a post on my talk page: [1] :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Nothing personal, just not convinced we need very many more bureaucrats. Even if we do need a few more, I prefer to promote ones I have seen and interacted with on policy pages. Jonathunder 21:35, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Nothing personal but i am not satisfied with the way Nichalp handle many posts. I don't think we need more bureaucarts and bureaucrats like nichalp NO AND NEVER because sometimes he is very biased when it comes to Hinduism related issues.Universe inside 20:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bureaucrats please note: this is a sockpuppet account of the below IP address. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • The above user refuses to accede to wikipedia policies. I reverted his edits because they feature possible unfree images Copyvio images (one of them is a Hindu temple). Despite me asking him to take a look at the talk pages and discuss the issue at hand, he refuses to talk or respond, instead choosing to criticise & slander me without even personally asking me the reason for the revert. I'd also listed the issue in "Vand. in Prog and asked Flcelloguy to watch over the Mumbai page." =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I have often seen this person as Biased against Hindu ideology and Hinduism. He is handling India related articles but trying very tactfully misusing his powers by neglecting Hinduism. I think it's very serious to give such person any powers.

Previous unsigned comment made by 221.134.238.2 (talk · contribs), who has 2 edits

  • Those who wish to know why anon has made these comments, plz see [2]. PS anons are NOT allowed to vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I don't think anon comments are weighed at all...but what to do with this vote? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be moved to comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

I am afraid that I'm entirely unfamiliar with Nichalp. Perhaps this is because our article-editing interests do not coincide, but I don't recall having encountered him in community pages either, and I believe that interaction with the community is an important part of being a bureaucrat. However, he's recieved a lot of glowing praise above from users I trust, so I remain neutral. — Dan | Talk 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this is because I don't spend enough time working on featured articles! :-) — Dan | Talk 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Same here, actually. --Phroziac (talk) 22:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Robert McClenon 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Has not responded to question 4. —RaD Man (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • NeutralChanged to support. Some of the subtleties in the answers concern me. Q1 says you would only examine the seriousness of opposing votes. What about the supporters, why does your scrutiny not cut both ways? In Q2, you say you would basically never reverse a decision you'd made. Does that apply more widely? Why would you be effectively unwilling to hear community objection to your (non-easily-reversible) actions? What sort of quantity of active bureaucrats do you think might keep things oiled? -Splash 16:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) To get to the tally of 80%, an oppose vote is worth four support votes. So I would definately need to look at the charges levelled. Charges such as "needs 4000 edits IMO" isn't what I would call a serious charge, and negates four support votes. An admin needs to be fair and trustworthy above all. I wouldn't disregard the vote completely, but I won't negate 4 votes at the same time for an extremely minor issue. (Note this is for 75-80% only) Admins need the trust of the community, a support vote is usually not accompanied by a reason. People vote in affirmative if they feel that the candidate meets their standards for adminship. I cannot disregard this. As long as there are no sockpuppet votes, I'll count all votes as valid. 2) As I've said, I'll discuss a potentially controversial nomination with other bureaucrats first. If the BC consenus is to promote, I'll promote, its the overall community decision. If I face flack from some for promotion, I would have at least 3/4th of the community behind me, and the backing of other bureaucrats; its not a one-man show. If I do not promote, again its the community vote, and the candidate always has the chance to apply once again. 3) For controversial decisions, I would seek a minimum of four bureaucrats' opinions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • All good. But. I'm not too happy with the suggestion that you will weaken someones vote if their bar is set higher than yours. Provided it's not a troll vote or socking or whatever, surely it's just as valid? -Splash 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot weaken a vote if the raw tally is <75%. I've not been given the mandate to do this. What I've been given, is the right to excercise my judgement as a bureaucrat if the tally is between 75-80%. I can't keep a candidate in limbo for too long. So I would have to take a decision, and I've detailed my procedure for promoting a candidate above if it falls in this critical range. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Bureaucrats have recently gained the technical ability to rename user accounts. In some cases this is being done involuntarily to combat user names judged to be inapprpriate, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard for examples. What types of usernames do you personally feel are inappropriate, and what process do you think should be followed before renaming accounts involuntarily? Dragons flight 17:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as involuntary changing of names goes: 1) Inappropriate usernames as mentioned in Wikipedia:Username. However what may be inappropriate to one culture may be accepetable to another. If a strong objection is lodged, (say, if the translation is globally offensive) I'd suggest the offending person opt to change his name, and then change his/her user name to something less controversial. [note: I have blocked a user permanently for having an inapprop username of a Hindi word written in English]. 2) Non-English characters that are difficult to type. (the Unique tamil case) This would make it pretty hard for users to contact/describe that person here in en:. (My answer is incomplete, I'd like some more time to evaluate it. Will complete in a day's time. Got to log off) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      I would effect an involuntary change for the above two cases. In the case of a user name being misleading/confusing (but not inflammatory), I would open an RFC before changing the username based on the RFC votes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • An instance of the difficulty with certain scripts can be seen here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 19:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Would you draw a distinction between names like User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and இ / 음낭? All of these present challenges typing on US/UK keyboards, and so have the same level of difficulty using them in technical contexts around the site. The latter two also lack a convenient handle for users to refer to, but I would think that could be solved by asking these individuals to use an English language sig. Also, இ / 음낭 were both renamed not only without discussion but also without Ed talking to them about what name they might like, do you intend to act in a similar manner. Dragons flight 15:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is a difference. Characters used in Ævar Arnfjörð are supported by many fonts, and have ASCII keystrokes assigned to them (in Win at least). Tamil, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic are not so straightforward, and are not supported by many fonts. [Eg त्र is a Hindi character which does not have a unique unicode number assigned to it.]
          I personally have no problems with such user names but would request the user that the name be 1) hyperlinked (v. imp) 2) Either the user name or signature should have Latin-based characters. Will also explain to the user the practical problems.
          Ed has chosen to change the names unilaterally but this is what I would do: 1) Receive complaints about the username. (I cannot monitor all new user names) 2) Request the person to change his username/use a different signature. Explain the practical reasons to the user. 3) If he disagrees to either option, (and I've exhausted all my convincing powers), I'll open an RFC, and also request users to suggest an alternate name in the event it should be changed. 4) I'll also post a link to the discussion in the admins' notice board & B'crat NB; and if the script is a language-based one, I'll also CC the link in the relevant regional notice-boards to seek a more clear mandate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've made an addition to Q2 below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Yes, I've read the discussions many times over the past few days. I'd promote a candidate automatically if he/she received 80%; and not promote if less than 75%. If it falls in the critical range (between 75 to 80), I'd prefer to discuss it with other bureaucrats, evaluating the seriousness of the oppose votes before taking a decision.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A.In such cases I'd prefer to discuss it with other bureaucrats, so that it's not a 100% unilateral stance. But once I make a decision, I'd always stick to it, despite the flack I may face in the short term. I'll of course state my reasons for promotion if questioned so I don't face the stick for favouritism etc.
<insert>I just remembered: I had closed the explosive Calcutta vs Kolkata poll/debate [3] in April this year. Till date nobody has contested the changes. (See Talk:Kolkata) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC) </insert>
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I've never failed to respond out a request if I'm messaged on my talk page (be it a newbie or an admin), or if a message is directed to me on a talk page which I frequent. If I genuinely can't carry out the request (happened only once or twice), I'd apologise so that the person is not kept waiting. You can also check out my edit history and recent talk archives for proof. I'd also informally tried to arbitrate once between User:Mr Tan and User:Mel Etitis sometime back, I did manage to get Tan to admit to some of his shortcomings in the early phases, before an RFC was put up against Tan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
4. Bureaucrats have the capability to rename user accounts. Aside from normal conditions where a user specifically requests that their name be modified, do you believe that a community consensus should be required before a bureaucrat makes such a change?
  • I'm sorry, I didn't know when this question came along here. Yes, as I've clearly mentioned above, I do believe that a consensus is necessary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nichalp&oldid=1089266546"