Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington[edit]

Final (99/4/4); Ended 12:55, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), 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 Wikipedia: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)

Co-nomiation by Tdxiang Anirudh has been a great help to Wikipedia, as per Freakofnurture's comments above. He's indeed a nice guy who deserves the mop, given that he has done a lot for us. Good job.

Co-nomination by Bumm13

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has been an active Wikipedian since January 2006. I met him (as Andy123) on Wikipedia's IRC channel during his first month as an editor. He has all the makings of a good Wikipedia admin; he's interested in making the project better, he watches closely for any signs of vandalism while doing RC patrol, and he's not afraid to ask veteran editors questions when he isn't quite sure what to do regarding a particular matter. He's prompt, energetic and best of all, sincere in his efforts to keep Wikipedia functioning smoothly as it continues to grow at its rapid pace. Best of all, he's an all-around nice guy. We need more admins around such as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. —freak(talk) 15:00, Jul. 27, 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm glad that your signature doesn't contain your whole username ;). DarthVader 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongest possible support per nom! - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Lost 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Hey, you have a pretty cool name.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Strong, strong edit-conflicted support, no questions asked! - Tangotango 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No-brainer Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support will make a good admin. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 13:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support: I found him very active. --Bhadani 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]
  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. αChimp laudare 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per all above. Roy A.A. 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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 hoopydinkConas 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  17. Support Excellent, trustworthy candidate. Xoloz 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Meets my standards and I have seen this user around Wikipedia. Seems like a very good editor and contributor. --Tuspm(C | @) 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
  21. Support, but needs more article namespace edits. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Why not? —Mirlen 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Suppport A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Suppport per nom.Voice-of-All 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support excellent candidate, contributes and is level-headed. -- Samir धर्म 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jaranda wat's sup 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support A solid contributor, one who is an active member of our community, especially in the RfA's ;) He fully deserves the tools. Thε Halo Θ 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per above. G.He 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SupportFabio 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)talk A fully deserving user, very well written articles.[reply]
  33. Support mostly vandal fighting, seems to be involved in a lot of deletion processes so should be ok deleting articles. Even though they are using the sandbox still, maybe I won't have to wait 20 minutes after reporting vandals at AIV?--Andeh 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Danielross40 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Pepsidrinka strongly supports. 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support seen this user around, thought he was already an admin. ViridaeTalk 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I've seen so much of you around, and never been unimpressed. :) RandyWang (raves/review me!) 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. ~ Encephalon 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Creepy, transparent-like Support Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Merovingian - Talk 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, of course. He's an excellent user. :) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sick Tdxiang support! I'm sick, but I'll support Anirudh!--Tdxiang 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per nom. Michael 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looking at his edits and history with Wikipedia it would be a crying shame if he wasn't handed the Mop and bucket. Good luck Sir Nick! Æon Insane Ward 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Obviously. 1ne 10:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support after conversation on IRC and extensive examination of edits. --Draicone (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Super strong support - definitely admin material. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 13:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Yanksox 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Absolutely certain of his qualifications for adminship. Bumm13 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Strong editor who deserves the tools! Viva La Vie Boheme 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Highway Return to Oz... 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Suport. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 17:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. One of the best editors in Wikipedia to be nominated.(Bluelist 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  56. I'm going to have to Support here. I haven't run into Sir Nick very much, but at the times I have he's seemed cordial enough and helpful, plus were I to have any editcountitis-related RfA criteria, he'd still have blown them away. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support level headed despite sounding blunt. wouldn't abuse admin tools, --Gurubrahma 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. On account of his awesome username. :) — GT 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support good user, interesting username!Seivad 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per all AdamBiswanger1 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, I've always had good interactions with Sir Nicholas etc., great contributions. -- Natalya 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Seems like a good guy. Attic Owl 15:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Trustworthy user with good experience. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support.  Grue  16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, all my interactions with Nick have left a good impression. Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. ZOMG Route 66 Lingeringon Cabalish Support He has experience and knowledge beyond his edit count and asks other experienced editors when he is unsure about something. He is highly unlikely to abuse the tools and can make great use of them in XfDs and vandal patrolling.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per all above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support We need MORE crazy named admins!!!! TruthCrusader 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, we need a Gryffindor editor to fight Lord Voldemort. LV's relentless power grabs are threatening to turn the wiki into a tool for evil. Ashibaka tock 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - good luck beating Tawkerbot2 though, that's next to impossible -- Tawker 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - pops up on my watchlist doing good things. bd2412 T 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Its Anirudh! It would be headless not to support. ImpuMozhi 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - per above nominators. --Bigtop 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, without reservations. Sango123 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, meets all of my criteria, and every experience I've had with the user has been positive. I just wish we could get some more admins from Ravenclaw... Ravenclaw Beater EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Everything is already said. GizzaChat © 09:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. StrongSupport Nuff Said. --Steve-o 09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Harry Potter's Birthday Support. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support -- Ashu|(talk) 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, seems to check out fine. -- Zanimum 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. I see nothing wrong here. If I had a strict criteria, you would surpass it. SynergeticMaggot 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Level-headed, tactful, constructive, and great use of edit summaries. He has my full support. --Elonka 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. — FireFox (talk) 18:10, 31 July '06
  85. Strong Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, looks like fine admin material. Agent 86 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support looks good. Stubbleboy 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, good user. --CharlotteWebb 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. {{RfA-cliche1}} Kimchi.sg 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Sorry I couldn't have been here sooner, Anirudh, but you know how it is with you know what... :-) Karmafist 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support++ Misza13 T C 19:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support of course. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Meets my criteria. --Wisden17 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, is it too late to jump in? :) I swear I thought I had already supported thee, Sir Nicholas! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, I saw nothing wrong and can make good use of the tools.--Dakota 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support: I like Noms, User page and Talk page. Stephen B Streater 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, while I would never support a headless admin, a nearly headless one is fine by me. NoSeptember 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  99. Pile-on support, and would whoever supports next please list on WP:100. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  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)[reply]
    Can you please provide some diffs to back up your claim? - Tangotango 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed Sir Nicholas's WP space edits, and couldn't find one that I found questionable. Would appreciate if you could specify the diffs that concerned you. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked through his last hundred WP space edits, and couldn't find anything that worried me. I will say that Sir Nick can be blunt at times ([1]), but I couldn't find any behaviour that would elicit "serious concern". This was, however, just a cursory glance - it's certainly possible that I missed something. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, Checked his last 250 edits, only a few good contributions. 3000 edits doesnt make a good admin. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point us to your Rfa criteria or otherwise help us understand what makes a good admin according to you? -- Lost 10:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, that is a fair argument and we need not interrogate any and all dissenters. AdamBiswanger1 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Explaining the vote is optional. Please do not harrass the voters. --Masssiveego 08:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just remember that this isn't technically a vote but a discussion. While of course there is no justified way to force a discusser to explain his/her choice, it is still recommended. GizzaChat © 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fails 1FA. -- Миборовский 18:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 08:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  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)[reply]
    Things that come to mind are that he spends most of his time doing adminny type things like XfD and vandalism watch. He also puts in a lot of time on #wikipedia-bootcamp which doesn't appear in someone's edit count but shows community involvement, knowledge of policies and a willingness to help and not bite newbies. IIRC he is also opped in #wikipedia which shows that he is already trusted to not abuse tools and powers not granted to most Wikipedians.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all good things, but there's no substitute for experience of editing "real" articles if you want to understand the issues faced by other editors. Deb 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: A little too soon by my standards (almost one month), in spite of excellent use of edits. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: I'm curious what the "various other pseudonyms" this editor is also known by are, and why.--Lordkinbote 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's referring to his signature saying Nearly Headless Nick, instead of his full username (which is sort of excessive). He's probably had other signatures in the past... -- nae'blis 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This also may refer to the fact that he changed his username and uses a different name on IRC. A full accounting of all of this can be found on his user talk page. Please do not penalize him further for changes necessitated by real life issues. Thank you for your understanding. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Falls short of my standards, namely does not have 200 article talk edits. This is not sufficient for me to oppose. Themindset 16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Sir Nicholas (over the 3186 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 185 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 28, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 26, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 98.69% Minor edits: 91.88%
Average edits per day: 12 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 259 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 95.95%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3186 edits shown on this page and last 31 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.22% (7)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.44% (46)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.19% (452)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 53.85%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 22 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1680 | Average edits per page: 1.9 | Edits on top: 12.27%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 52.7% (1679 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 13.94% (444 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 19.81% (631 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 11.46% (365 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 34.62% (1103) | Article talk: 5.46% (174)
User: 9.7% (309) | User talk: 31.86% (1015)
Wikipedia: 15.32% (488) | Wikipedia talk: 0.44% (14)
Image: 1.85% (59)
Template: 0.44% (14)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0.13% (4)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.19% (6)
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
Questions for the candidate

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia: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.

Optional question from Lar:

4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington&oldid=1147963370"