Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

NuclearWarfare

Final (44/30/9); Ended 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Closed by User:Balloonman per candidate withdrawal EDIT: It was pointed out to me that link I provided only indicated that the candidate wanted the discussion in question closed. I read it as confirmation about closing the RfA because NW emailed me as well expressing the intention to close it. He also confirmed it below, with his confirmed post that Edit conflicted with my closing of the RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) – NuclearWarfare is a user who has been around for a while now, and I was just coming to wonder, why isn't he an admin yet? He has over 20000 edits, engaging mainly in anti-vandal work and other maintenance work. When I see him, I see a clueful user, a user who is friendly, a user who people can get along with.

NW is an active contributor to the Avatar WikiProject, improving multiple lists to FL status. He has improved List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1), and Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) all to FL status. In addition to working for the Avatar Wikiproject, NW is also a prolific vandal fighter, reporting well over 200 users to AIV. Many other times has he (correctly) reported new articles for CSD. If NuclearWarfare becomes an admin, his work in CSD, anti-vandal work, and RFPP will be very beneficial.

He does not get into much drama, as much of his work is gnomey. If anyone is mad at him, NW remains civil, and never holds it as a grudge. In addition, looking over his talk page, I see many users thanking for his help, in all aspects of WP. The only issues I can see with this candidate has to do with his vandal work vs. article work. He has about 8000 Huggle edits, and has "only" 3 FLs. I don't see this as much of a concern, however, as 3 different featured content is actually very good for an editor who is mainly "behind the scenes".

NuclearWarfare is a user who is friendly, helpful, and easy to get along with. I see NuclearWarfare as a great admin. Xclamation point 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom by bibliomaniac15: "Only three FLs"? Man, I'm getting wiki-old. I was pleased to coach NuclearWarfare, which can be seen here. I believe that he has developed into someone who is very well-rounded: civil, skilled in both maintenance and writing, and helpful in answering other's questions. I am convinced he will make a good addition into our ranks as an administrator, along with X!. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would like to take this oppurtunity to thank X! for nominating me (without warning ;) ) and Biblio for graciously helping me out these last few months. I accept their nomination. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin areas do you intend to work in?

A. Primarily, I intend to focus on the areas of admin-related activities that I know best, specifically AIV and Page Protection, as they both need constant attention; especially the second, as sometimes requests can lie there for hours at a time. Also, I intend to continue my work with new page patrolling. I intend to work there, both by doing frontline vandalism deletion and deleting pages tagged for deletion. I would not, however, delete any page that did not clearly fit under G3, G7, or G10, as the rest definitely necessitate another user’s eyes over the article before deletion.

I would also be available for any user who needed my help in editing a protected page, and in other such requests, like userfying a copy of a deleted article.

2. What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?

A. Well, any vandal fighter can tell you of the horror stories, but honestly, not much has happened to me that has caused me great amounts of stress. Issues with some of my wikifriends have caused me stress, but those are unrelated to RfA. Since people will want to (and should) look more deeply into this, here are my archives.

To go on a little side tangent here, offering apologies is something that I believe should happen more often, because it sadly happens too little after confrontations. It is something I always try to do when I make a mistake, and I think Wikipedia would be a better place if more people did the same.

I can't recall any more confrontations with Wikipedia-related projects; my work at Wikipedia has most been in the background, so most of the people that get angry are new editors, who often diffuse after I simply explain something or help out a little with what they need to do.

3. What do you believe are your best contributions?

A. There are several areas of the encyclopedia at which I believe I have excelled. Vandalism patrol something that I am very proud of. In addition to the normal vandal whacking that so many people kindly do, I have also done quite a bit of new page patrolling, and I even helped improve some of the criteria.

Several RfA regulars also like to see solid article work. Writing is not my strong suit, but I have made several forays in the world of article writing. Currently, I am 3/5 of the way to a Featured Topic, with three pieces of featured content and two more hopefully on the way. For my best accomplishments, please see User:NuclearWarfare/Accomplishments.

Also, for some niche things: I have spent quite some time in the account creation process.

For the past few months, I have been hanging out in IRC. For those who frequent the public channels, let me assure you that I don’t partake and will not expect to partake in the drama that occasionally is posted. Instead, I would continue what I have always done, helping out new users who wander into the help channel every so often or help handle {{helpme}} requests.

Questions that I want to get out of the way

4. Recall process?

A. Yes, I plan to have one if I'm elected, likely one based off of either this or this.

5. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. I would either unblock the IP and very carefully monitor its edits, or use the {{2nd chance}} template.

Optional questions from Skomorokh

6. I see you have done some commendable work in the realm of fiction. What are your thoughts on the issue of articles about fictional topics that are extensive and informative but have scant secondary sourcing?

A. Thanks for your question. My heart truly goes out to the authors of the article-types that you have mentioned. The information in them is usually highly useful, but unfortunately, ILIKEIT isn't enough to keep them in Wikipedia. Usually, these topics fail both WP:N and WP:V. We shouldn't rush to delete them, but we should keep them, attempt to source them, and if that fails, we should try to transwiki them to Wikia or merge them into larger articles. In fact, I myself ran into this quandary a few days ago with Azulon, where I found an article that I really liked, but was ultimately nominated for AfD. Now, my heart told me to vote Strong Keep, but the outcome, merge and redirect was truly the correct one.

Hmmm. I seem to have no clue what I just wrote. Hopefully, you can understand that. If not, I can attempt to clarify.

No that's quite alright, I am quite happy with your response, thank you. Skomorokh 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Some editors may have reservations about supporting the RfA candidacy of someone without extensive article writing experience. In what ways do you think lacking such experience can sometimes lead to problematic administrator behaviour?

A. I'm going to decline to give my full view of this, because I have some rather strong feelings on this subject and I don't want to divert the focus of this RfA. If you contact me offwiki, I shall be happy to explain what I think. But I will give a short explanation:

I believe that one of the main reasons that a person would oppose someone who isn't an article writer is because of the delete button. A user who is experienced with building up content is far less likely to make an easy call to delete material. But that's my own personal opinion/idea, and I have no idea if it right or not

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1:

8. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do and why? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).

AFollow WP:SUICIDE to the letter. I've read it before, and I see no harm with it. At worst, I lose 20 minutes of my time. At best, I save a life. Pretty easy call.

Additional questions from RockManQ

9. What do you think of WP:IAR? Have you ever had to invoke it, and when do you think it would be an appropriate time for an administrator to use it?

A. I've been asked this question before by Biblio, so I'm going to point to my answer here.

10. What is your own personal criteria for granting rights at WP:PERM; such as rollback, AWB, and NPWatcher? (please explain all three, if possible)

A. I would grant out rollback to any user who has been here both a fair amount of time and done at least a little bit of anti-vandal work. I really have to research this one though, and I obviously wouldn't grant out Rollback until I had done some research.

I would grant out the Account Creator tool to anyone in ACC who needed it. I work pretty often in ACC, so I know who is active and who isn't.

AWB - Follow the guidelines listed

NewPage Watcher - I honestly don't know why you would ever use this one (seriously, patrolling via Huggle or simple Javascript is much better), so I'd actually give this out pretty freely to anyone who had done some New Page Patrol, as not that much damage could be done with this one.

11. Are there any polices/guidelines you disagree with? If so, please explain why and what you would do as an administrator to change them?

A. Hmmm. Well, I can't really think of any policies or guidelines that I disagree with, besides some minor MoS stuff. As an administrator, I would do nothing to change this. As an editor, if I cared enough, I'd start a discussion on the relavent talk page

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

12 What are your thoughts about the current IWF image controversy, of which you appear to be aware. Are we doing the right thing? The wrong thing? Would you block someone who exceeded 3RR in removing the image from the Virgin Killer page? (Pre-emptive comment: this question is just meant to gauge the candidate's decision making process, not say "oh you think it is child porn==>I will oppose".) Thank you.

A. The current IMF controversy is a mess, but so far, we have done everything "correctly", I believe. We have not caved in to the British government and we have upheld our core beliefs. We have discussed the problem on AN/ANI (whichever) and attempted to find technical workarounds (on Bugzilla). And I believe that the Foundation's Legal Counsel is discussing the situation with the IMF.

For the second part, yes I would block someone for violating 3RR on Virgin Killer. There is no reason to IAR that many times, especially with a clear consensus to keep the image and let the Foundation deal with everything.

In short, we have done all that we should have done. It is really a Foundation issue, as it goes beyond a simple content issue and more to the point of the influence of government on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tennis expert

13. In your administrative coaching thread, you were asked, "If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia without any opposition, what would it be?" One of your responses was, "That whole thing with date unlinking and AWB goes away and is resolved in my favor." What did you mean by that and, more particularly, by "in my favor"?

A. That was bad wording, and I would reword that statement if I was making it today. What I truly meant was: "There is much drama around date unlinking, something that I think is a relatively minor issue that shows a strong consensus to go one way but a very vocal minority who oppose the change to MOSNUM. I wish it would all just go away. But if it did go away, please let the final result be what the community has indeed now come around to."

Your answer is illogical, IMO. If you believe this to be such a minor issue, why have you spent so much of your time using AWB to date delink articles? Shouldn't an administrator (or candidate adminstrator) be spending time on issues that the person believes to be important? Concerning your explanation to "let the final result be what the community has indeed now come around to", that indicates your lack of understanding concerning consensus. Wikipedia policy requires that the final result reflect consensus, not an exhortation or encouragement that the final result reflect consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

14. Concerning AWB, what is your opinion about the AWB rules of use, one of which specifically says, "Don't do anything controversial with it" and how do your date delinking activities with AWB satisfy that rule? Is it permissible to use AWB to edit several articles per minute as you did on December 7? One of the AWB rules of use says, "Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute."

A. As far as the don't do anything controversial with it, see the discussion in the most recent WT:AWB archives that specifically allow for the use of date unlinking via AWB. Also, I try to keep my rate of editing to under four per minute (and often less), as recorded by the AWB timer.

Please try to provide a diff next time so that we don't have to guess about which thread you're citing. If you intended to cite this thread, then you're reliance on that thread is misplaced. That thread related to the inconsequential edits prohibition in the AWB rules of use, not to the controversial edits prohibition in those rules. Tennis expert (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

15. Is it possible for an RFC that has not yet closed to "show strong consensus" about a particular issue? If you answer is "yes", then what is the purpose of an RFC having a specified ending date?

A. Well, it is not only those RfCs, which can indeed show a consensus based on general trends, but also several other discussions, which have taken place at many varied locations: a b c d e.

Aside from your personal opinion, what is the precedent for concluding that a not-yet-closed RFC shows "strong" or any other kind of consensus for a particular issue? You really didn't answer my question about the purpose of RFC ending dates. Instead, you cited a general Wikipedia article about extrapolation. If you're going to be an administrator and enforce Wikipedia policy, then you need to have a better grasp of that policy and not undermine ongoing RFCs. As for the cases you cited, all of them predated the ongoing RFCs. Aside from that major problem with your logic, "a" was based on an allegation that Lightmouse violated the inconsequential edits rule of use regarding AWB, not the controversial edits rule. They are different rules. Concerning "b", no decision was made, and it is completely unclear on what basis the original complaint was made anyway. Concerning "c" and "d", those cases related to the use of a bot. Case "c" was resolved when Lightmouse agreed to stop using the bot for date delinking activities. Case "d" initially resulted in a block of the bot and, after the block was lifted, a statement by an administrator that the block could be reinstituted if the bot resumed date delinking activities. I have no idea why you cited "e", as that case was a housekeeping discussion about two pending date linking RFCs. In conclusion, I believe your answer to this question clearly proves that you are not yet prepared to be an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See NuclearWarfare's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for NuclearWarfare:
• NuclearWarfare (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
• People may want to see User:NuclearWarfare/Admin Coaching. In any case, I'm posting it for transparency, as it may be gone if I decide to redesign my userpage. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/NuclearWarfare before commenting.

Discussion

• You have my full support when this goes live. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Is date-delinking really controversial enough to restrain NW from adminship? DARTH PANDA^duel 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. SuperDuperUberEpic"ThisUserIsNotAlreadyAnAdmin!?"StrongSupport ayematthew ✡ 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per previous comment. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - good janitor. // roux   00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Looks great. LittleMountain5 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. How the hell were you not already an admin? Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Support See him around often, trust his judgment. faithless (^speak) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support You deserve it! I was shocked that you were not an admin in the first place. Good Luck! K50 DUDE^{TALK TO ME!}_{LOOK AT ME!}
8. Strong Support. I was going to vote "Moral Oppose" because he's too perfect, but was convinced not to do so. Anyways, on to my reasoning. In my year (or two) of knowing this user, he has shown both maturity and a clear head, two absolutely key requirements for an admin. As my confident, he has seen most of my bad sides, and has surprising retained his good judgment even when faced with an extremely stressed out and moderately insane friend. I have never seen NW angry. While I've seen him moderately annoyed, he somehow manages to pass off his annoyance with jokes and a smile, an ability I would very much like to gain from him. As for his actual contributions, he does, or has done, a bit of everything. I've seen him helpdesk'ing, in discussions, doing content creation, and battling vandals. This isn't even a net positive case, I'm sure that NW will be a superb admin. Note: I am a good friend of this user. (I just editconflicted twice >_<) DARTH PANDA^duel 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   They say the people you know best are your enemies, and this seems to be strangely true here. I've sat here and read every single oppose and every single comment (which I've never done before on an RfA), and the points brought up by the opposes have drastically changed my views on NuclearWarfare. I'd have to say that he is far from perfect, and in fact, seems quite flawed. However, the issues brought up by the opposes have not yet convinced me that he is unfit for adminship; they have merely shown me that he is imperfect, as all humans must be. DARTH PANDA^duel 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Strong as a Bodybuilder Support FUCK yes. Sam ^Blab 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Is that a reference to something? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   A support as strong as a bodybuilder! Sam ^Blab 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Hah. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

10. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Hell, yeah. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support As per Newyorkbrad and Darth Panda.Outstanding candidate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - yes, please. Additional comment: Having read the oppose from Ecoleetage and having looked through the diffs he provides, I am entirely convinced to maintain my support. NuclearWarfare shows a level head and a very reasonable attitude. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
15. —macy 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
16. I've seen his name pop up many times, and I'm pretty sure he'll be a fantastic administrator. Very dedicated and pleasant to have around. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
17. While I disagree that NPWatcher can't cause damage (Newcomer articles come to mind) you did a good job of dodging the bullet (Q11), and I hope you become an admin. RockManQ^{Review me} 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps it is just my experience, but I have found that NPW is slower than both Huggle and just using Firefox and a few scripts to browse through Special:NewPages. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Who said NPWatcher was useful? I was merely stating that I think some damage can be caused by it. For the record, I like Huggle better though :) RockManQ^{Review me} 04:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

18. Support I am, actually, floored that NukeWar (rawr) isn't already an admin. I came here expecting to make some absurd oh wow I thought you were... sort of support, but decided not to. The points made by the opposes and the neutral are largely compelling to me. In order of concern I would consider Skomorokh's the most troubling, then Icewedge, then Eco's comments. I won't go so far as to attach as many adverbs and adjectives as Skomorokh does to that edit, but it is troubling. Icewedge makes the good (though vague) point that the candidate doesn't resist the 'bandwagon' enough. If substantiated, that is a troubling accusation. I'm left with some dim memory (and feeling from the questions) that this is true about the candidate but without some more substantial evidence (e.g. diffs of the candidate reversing support as the mood changes and so forth), I can't oppose based on that. Eco brought the most concerns to the table but they are least troubling to me. WP:DTTR, taken in isolation, is not a compelling reason for me to feel that a candidate is not qualified. It is my opinion that NW is right: lvl 1 templates serve as an easy means to inform people of something and are not just for new users and vandals. But even setting that opinion aside I can't see how it represents poor judgment. I object strongly to the characterization of his AfD closures as 'inept' (a word that Fram never uses). The word would be "hasty" and I see no evidence that NW continued to close AfDs early following that discussion. Eco's comment about editing other user's posts and then getting touchy about it gets pretty close to the mark. It does appear that NW bolded that vote (uncool) and then invoked IAR when asked about it (puzzling). Eco's summary is also worth listening to. The specific points are not compelling but his 'feel' on NW is valuable. If this RfA is successful I encourage NW to take that feedback 'onboard' as it were. But I have confidence in this candidate. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Number of sentences devoted to citing the specific and memorable Wiki-related contributions of NW: 0. Number of sentences devoted to challenging the input of Icewedge, Skomorokh and me: 15. "I would like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we've passed the audition!" :) Ecoleetage (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't hard for me. I'm inclined to support candidates by default. I'm especially inclined to support candidates with experience and some clue. When some challenge is made as to why I shouldn't support them, I try to take that challenge seriously and present an argument why I feel the candidate deserves my support notwithstanding the credible claims of the opposition. Consequently, it feels ineffective for me to address specific claims by raising unrelated good points (and among 13000 edits I am liable to find many laudable actions). Rather I should directly and seriously address concerns raised. I'm sorry if you feel that was inappropriate or that I should have proportioned my sentences differently. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

19. Support I've seen him around, and after reviewing the stats on his activity, I am immensely impressed by the energy and dedication NuclearWarfare has put into Wikipedia. Some of the opposing opinions raise some concerns about his style, but they don't come close to suggesting that he'd abuse admin tools. After all, the question is about whether he'd use administrative tools properly, and all the available evidence suggests he cares deeply about the project, has a clear sense of the role he wishes to play as an admin, and will be a benefit to Wikipedia as an admin. Ray (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I have had good experiences with this editor and trust him. FlyingToaster 08:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Support I always thought NWF a CLUEful editor (not only because he copied my (old) UBX layout ;-) who should be an admin. I do understand the concerns by the opposing users and I trust their judgment usually (especially template-warning a seasoned editor like Ecoleetage is very stupid) but I am confident that NWF is mature enough to admit his mistakes and to learn from them. SoWhy 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Good editor. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    The opposes are either unconvincing or else actual reasons to support. This was a good, common sense edit. THE GROOVE 13:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose. THE GROOVE 02:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

23. Support Every time I've run across NW's edits, they've been helpful and/or informative. Would be a net plus. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Support, Is very friendly and civil. A very good and trustworthy editor. He would make a very good administrator here on Wikipedia. V D on a public PC (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support: Articulate, friendly, civil and has the common sense we need in admins. No doubt that this individual would be an asset to the community as an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    I see no problems with the userboxes. Billo the Clown is a nickname that is in public use (see Keith Olbermann). Atheists are as welcome here on Wikipedia as born-again christians, muslim fundamentlists, hinduvistas and agnostics. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Billo the Clown might be a nickname that is in public use among his detractors, but not his supporters or by Bill O Reilly himself. It is said in a derogatory manner, just as people call Bill Clinton "Slick Willy." Would it be acceptable for somebody to call Jim McDermott "Baghdad Jim?" or Louis Farrakhan "Calypso Louie" or Harry Reid as "Dingy Harry" or Patrick Leahy as "Leaky Leahy?" These are all nicknames used by Rush Limbaugh, but does it make them any less derogatory?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    And as for the atheism-related userboxes, no one is suggesting atheists aren't 100% welcome on Wikipedia. I for one just don't appreciate condescending userboxes, and believe they are a huge red flag for someone who aspires to a position of power. You're allowed to have a different opinion than I do, Toddst1, but please do me a favor and stop misrepresenting my position. Keepscases (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

26. Reserved support. I believe I can trust the user in the areas for which the tools are requested. I would ask the candidate to carefully consider the criticisms from the opposition. (An apology or two may be in order.) I would encourage the editor to partake more in the joy of creating, sourcing and expanding articles. I would urge the candidate to not close any AFD's that have not run their full course for a while. Dlohcierekim 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    PS-- and per Blanchardb. I'd forgotten about that. Dlohcierekim 18:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

27. Support - Per Eco. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Widsom, you are the last person I would expect to see make one of these juvinille support !votes. I truly am shocked to see you doing so, I had a higher of an opinion of you than this indicates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Striking. But still Supporting a terrific mainspace contributor Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, c'mon...I'm not the least bit offended. I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

28. Support — Per everyone above, really. Good editor, net positive. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. All the arguments for it have already been given. I have nothing against someone expressing a POV on one's own user page, as long as it is marked as such. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
30. That, why are you not an admin already kind of support!Seen this user around, really great vandalism fighter and all round editor. Andy (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Strongest possible support. Based on your admin coaching page, answers to above questions, and everything else. Good luck! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. None of the oppositional diffs strike me as particularly concerning. Overall, it seems this candidate is overwhelmingly qualified. Tan | 39 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Already a janitor, let him have a mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, if for no other reason than to counteract Keepscases's discriminative and frankly offensive vote, at least until it is struck. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Support I usually only vote on RFAs to oppose, where I feel it's necessary to protect the project in my own tiny way, but support might make a difference here. Candidate seems trustworthy and opposes are unusually unpersuasive here for me. Townlake (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Trustworthy, deserving, hard working etc. You got my vote.--Iamawesome800 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Strong support - meets all of my standards including having rollback rights, doing admin coaching, fighting vandals, nice userpage, etc. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
40. Support you are not allready a sysop??? abf /talk to me/ 13:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - I've seen him here and there frequently, and I don't doubt his capability. AdjustShift (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
42. It's about time support. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
43. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
44. Weak support (Moved from neutral) - Well, Skomorokh makes a valid point, but I trust this user not to abuse the tools, so WTHN? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The candidate does little to resist the Bandwagon effect, also for the occasional lack of good sense, as illustrated here, and, this has nothing really to do with my position, but the candidate might want to reread the definition of a minor edit. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   I saw your comment, and I'd like to see some examples of the bandwagon effect, as I am strongly against those who follow it and I haven't really seen NW fall into that category. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Not going to badger you for your oppose, but I have indeed started using the minor edit feature more often, to reduce workload on RC Patrollers. If you want, I can set my default back on to mark as major edit. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   I would strongly recommend that you do that, if everyone started marking their edits minor just to ease the load on RC patrollers, a 'minor edit' would quickly become meaningless. Also, many people have their watchlists set to disregard minor edits (with the assumption that since they are minor they are non-consequential) and so would miss your edits. I doubt marking edits as minor really helps the RC patrollers either, the Huggle filter is based of a user whitelist and for those without Huggle filtering by autoconfirmed status is a much better way of disregarding the good guys. Icewedge (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   I would have thought my edits are minor enough, but I'll take your advice and set my default to "mark as major." - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Just because an edit is not minor does not mean it is major, if someone would be interested in your changes (e.g your comment right here which was marked as minor), don't mark it as minor. Icewedge (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry, but I feel the candidate is not the least bit qualified at this time for adminship. My first and only encounter with the candidate came in October, when he decided to give me a Level 1 warning for not marking CSD tagged articles as “patrolled.” I then noticed he was on a templating kick and did the same to other editors. When I pointed out that giving template warnings to people who are not vandals was not appropriate, he seemed touchy and refused to strike out the templates (here is the exchange: [1]). In reviewing his work since then, I see nothing that strikes me as being admin-worthy. He has already been called to task for inept AfD closures [2] and for editing other people’s contributions [3] – in both cases, he’s touchy when informed of his mistakes. Content creation appears to be nonexistent, which doesn’t help. The answer to Q7 is bizarre – first he won’t answer, then he abruptly claims (with zero evidence) that content creators are more likely not to delete articles. Content creation skills enable an admin to pinpoint how to enhance an article – after all, we are here to build, not destroy. The points raised by Icewedge and Skomorokh only confirm my feelings (and it looks like he was going to badger Icewedge, but caught himself before too much damage was done). Someone who prefers templates to talk, who bristles at benign criticism, who isn’t creating content and doesn’t acknowledge the value of that skill is the wrong person for this job. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Note that the user has contributed to three featured lists, so he is creating content. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Fixing links and very minor copy edits on articles created and enhanced by other people is not the same thing as creating content. As Truman Capote allegedly once said: that's not writing, that's typing. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Per answers to 2,3, 7, & 11. The reason is I vote against non-content contributing admin candidates is because too many vandal-zapping or mandarin admins damage the health of the encyclopedia. Leadership from such sources tends to promote discipline and style matters over substantial matters of content, promoting for instance editor-centered policies like "edit warring" at the expense of reader-centered policies like verifiability, npov, etc. "Deletionists" are fine for me! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Might I point out that he is, in no way, shape, or form, a hardcore vandal-fighter? DARTH PANDA^duel 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Well, if things work the way they're supposed to we don't get leadership from any sort of admin. Are you saying you think NW will attempt to lead non-admins instead of just, well, administering things? Or am I taking your wording too literally? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose. This candidate's severe lack of understanding regarding the rules of use concerning AWB and his contentious post here prove that he is not qualified to be administrator. Also, this candidate is himself using AWB to make date delinking edits to scores of articles at a furious rate in violation of the AWB rules of use, a fact that he should have disclosed in his post. See, e.g., this edit. Tennis expert (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Note: the above editor's primary agenda since his "retirement" appears to be stopping the delinking of dates which was used solely for the purposes of date-autoformatting - a guideline which has been deprecated for some time. If you want a really good chortle, be sure to visit his talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose, clearly unfamiliar with consensus building process and general Wikipedia policies. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Note: the above editor is a habitual edit-warrior whose vehemently opposes delinking of dates which was used solely for the purposes of date-autoformatting. The phrase "unfamiliar with consensus building" is meant to imply being against the use of DA, now deprecated for some time. How dare anyone who supports a guideline stand for administrator! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   You seriously need to stop stalking me. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Ohconfucius, do you not realise that what you're doing is not appropriate? A user's personal background has no impact on the validity of the arguments they put forward, and were I Locke Cole I'd be creeped out too. If you pester all oppose votes like this you could theoretically be accused of badgering editors, and at a crucial place like RfA this could have consequences. Just saying. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   This appears to be prevailing shtick for this RfA -- discredit the concerns (and, in this case, the contributions) of everyone who is not supportive of the candidate, even if it means rewriting your !vote. The poverty of that strategy is magnified by the fact no one supporting the candidate has been able to identify any important contributions that the candidate has brought to Wikipedia. I would be interested in hearing "I am !voting for him because he did X, Y and Z" as opposed to "I am not swayed by the Opposition." Ecoleetage (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I have talked to you on IRC a number of times, and you come across as a polite, modest and collected person. However, stuff like this worries me not just a little (which would make me neutral), it worries me a lot. I'm not liking the badgering above either, but I guess that isn't your fault. You are certainly a good janitor, as Roux said, but I am having problems with trusting your judgment at this particular moment in time. If you were to come back again (that is, assuming that this doesn't pass, which it may well do) I would not hesitate to consider changing my !vote. Keep up the good work, — neuro^(talk) 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Removed 'tentative' per east718. I'm sorry, but I am too concerned. — neuro^(talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose I do not trust your judgment, nor your AFD work. SashaNein (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Could you provide some evidence to back up your concerns about NuclearWarfare's judgment? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Other than the 'evidence' of an opinion that is already in my oppose statement, [4] comes to mind. SashaNein (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   That's not AFD work. MuZemike (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   I don't trust his judgment at any admin work. I also don't trust how he nominates AFDs. I also don't trust how he will close AFDs. I have only seen that he is, in my opinion, likely to rush into things without proper or even basic research, which could be dangerous for someone with admin tools. I will not reword my oppose reason a fourth time. Please leave me alone. SashaNein (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per Ecoleetage. Smug atheist userboxes don't help his cause, either. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   _{Moved discussion to talk page, it's getting in the way. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)}

9. Oppose. I wasn't originally planning to comment either way on this one, as I've had virtually no interaction with you, but seeing all this discussion has prompted me to do some checking and you're being outright misleading – almost to the point of plain lying – about your history. Of the Good Article for which you claim credit, this was your entire contribution, while the sum-total of your contributions to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes was to fix a couple of wikilinks and add one paragraph about Region 2 distribution. If you were requesting RFA purely as a Huggler, while I wouldn't be supporting (I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do), I wouldn't be actively opposing, but since you're explicitly making claims about article work ("I am 3/5 of the way to a Featured Topic, with three pieces of featured content and two more hopefully on the way"), it makes me wonder what else you're exaggerating and/or distorting, and whether this kind of attitude is consistent with a role based entirely on trust. This, coupled with an apparent lack of common sense and understanding of how Wikipedia works (this is a shining example), plus an apparent wannabe-cabalist IRC mentality ("If you contact me offwiki, I shall be happy to explain what I think" in your own RFC, for chrissake!) pushes me over the "oppose" line. – iridescent 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   I made a note here that I definitely should have noted before. This is my idiocy here, pure and simple. I apologize to any user whom this may have misled. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

10. "I feel that administrative decisions could be made on IRC if and only if... logs are placed on wiki". Total nonstarter; ideas born in the chat room should not be used as the sole justification for actions taken here, and besides, the posting of private correspondence is verboten and sanctionable both here and at Freenode. BLP-violating userboxes are a nonstarter. Stealing FA credits so you can get to the next level is a nonstarter. Need I go on? east718 // talk // email // 18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Respectfully, the quote from NW's admin coaching page is presented here out of the context of the question it responds to. It strikes me that NW's intention was to present an opinion based on a "should" query, not to indicate what he would actually do at present given the existing rules. Though reasonable people could disagree; just an observation. Townlake (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

11. I have to agree with east718 here regarding Internet Relay Chat. Discussion should take place on-wiki. Headache-inducing possibility too great. E kala mai (sorry), Nuke. --Ali'i 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per Iridescent and East17. Your ambitions are those of a level-upper, rather than a Leveller. RMHED (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Per iridescent and east. o.O THE GROOVE 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose I hate piling on but East718's oppose nails it. Yanksox (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Reluctant Oppose, per East718 above - I was thinking of going neutral until I read his vote. Taking actions on Wikipedia based solely on discussions on IRC is an extremely bad idea, even if the logs are posted (which has its own problems); not all Wikipedians have IRC, and holding content discussions there prevents editors from commenting who might otherwise wish to do so. There are good reasons why actions on Wikipedia should be based on on-wiki discussions only, and I'm prepared to oppose over that alone. Terraxos (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    In addition though, I'm not a fan of this edit:[5] When someone complains about a userbox you have that they don't like, you have a couple of good options: keep it, and discuss with them why you feel it is acceptable, or civilly comply with their request and remove it. Your action - remove the userbox, while leaving an angry and defensive edit summary - was pretty much the worst of all options. This may seem like a small issue, but it does not give the impression that you would work well with other users when faced with disputes as an administrator. Sorry. Terraxos (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Related to the userbox: See WP:Requests for adminship/SoWhy. I agree though, I probably should have been far more civil. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I do understand why you were angry about this - I must admit I was amazed to see the truly unreasonable (IMO) opposes in that RFA, and if I'd been using that userbox I would have felt affronted as well. But it's worth noting that SoWhy - the person who was actually running for adminship in that case - responded to the criticism calmly and civilly, and thus managed to still pass his RFA despite it. Without wishing to sound too patronising, I think you would do well to learn from his example. Terraxos (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose - do not trust their judgment based on past interactions, and the above gives more pause. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose The candidate should write some articles, in order to gain an understanding of why we're all here, rather than just say he has in order to become an admin. Nick mallory (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Iridescent and east718 make already convincing points. The userboxen version linked by Terraxos included User:Lenerd/VP.[6] which said at that time that "This user thinks Vice President Dick Cheney should be hanged, drawn and quartered" and was deleted per MfD. With respect to the above mentioned straw poll on the importance of the RfA nominator, I also don't know what to think of highlighting now the nominators int the transclusion[7] --Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Weak Oppose on this one. Iridescent isn't quite on the mark, the reply from the candidate addresses her point about his level of work on the Avatar articles (namely, that most of the work was done on pages transcluded onto the main list page); I wasn't really impressed by the assumption of bad faith there that he'd be intentionally misleading us. Also, I find the userboxes kerfuffle to be quite silly -- we've passed candidates before with userboxes on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. However, decisions being made on IRC is a very bad idea, and the edit to the IWF controversy page was a pretty poor choice as well. NW, I'm sure you do good work here, keep it up and come back in a little while. GlassCobra 10:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    I need to pull you up on this one; I picked the big list as an example but the "claiming credit for the work of others" point is just as valid for the sub-lists as well. Taking Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) as an example, this is every change from the edit immediately prior to NW's first edit to the current version; the totality of NW's work on it has been to take an existing article, add a few line breaks, standardize the headings in the template boxes and alter a couple of words. Technically he's responsible for it being an FL in the sense that he nominated it, but he created virtually none of the content, yet in his answers above there's a clear implication that he did. – iridescent 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose, too much argument with the opposers. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose To many valid concerns, best as identified by east. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per east and iridescent. لennavecia 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Not an appropriate candidate. There are more detailed and valid reasons above, several of which I agree with. But simply knowing that the candidate is a chat room kid is almost always enough to make a good decision. Friday (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose Schmoozer. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose Game player who lacks sufficient maturity - East is spot on GTD 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose Hate to pile on, but there are waaaaay too many maturity issues to even consider trusting with the tools. Trusilver 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
27. I don't believe this user is ready. Partly per indiscriminate delinking edits, willingness to post logs publicly, taking credit for the work of others, considering template bitch-slaps to be constructive communication, and so on. However it is the revelation in question six ("voting" against what your heart tells you because of what a guideline says) which worries me the most. Sincerely. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC) If my argument needs more Umpf I should mention where the candidate voted to delete a Russian folk tune for "lack of notability". However, minimal research would have revealed that it was the theme from Tetris! — CharlotteWebb 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose I rarely oppose RfAs but in this case I think lack of proper article-building and some poor judgments must make this a "no" at present. --Rodhullandemu 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per east718. And I just love how a person can support per nom, but if you dare oppose, your argument damn well better hold up in a court of law (even after other Wikipedians chime in and do their best to directly discount your opinion). Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak oppose - I'm with east and Iridescent here. For disclosure, I am an IRC user and believe it can be useful but I also note that this is not the time to have another admin who doesn't understand that irc is fully secondary to on-wiki work and discussion. I certainly will consider supporting a future RFA however. JodyB _talk 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I was leaning support, but am seriously unimpressed by the judgement shown by the candidate in this edit. Ill-considered, counter-consensus, edit-warring, drama-inducing, and putting politics ahead of the quality of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 02:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I like that the candidate has contributed to featured lists and has never been blocked, but (and in the hopes that I am not "nuked" for being objective!) Ecoleetage's concerns above seem somewhat compelling and I generally do not like this sort of WP:JNN style of "vote" in that they do not seem to offer sufficient explanations. So enough of a blend of positives and concerns that I cannot really oppose or support at this time. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Ha, you make it sound like contributing to featured lists is a good way to get blocked. That diff is quite disturbing, thanks for finding it. — CharlotteWebb 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Netural I can't support, but yet I don't want to oppose. I'll just sit out on this one. America69 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral pending a response to Iridescent re contributions to a Good Article and Featured List. I don't think admins need a string of good or featured articles, but I don't like the suggestion that credit has been claimed for some where the contribution wasn't central to their status. In fairness we've only heard the claim and not your response - is there anything you'd like to add? Euryalus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Hmm — personal experiences are nice... but can't make a moral decision. —Ceran♦(speak)^◙ 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. NuclearWarfare is a good editor, but I'm concerned about the FA and GA claims put forward in this RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I would like to support, but the opposition has some points. Perhaps next time. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Skomorokh. --John (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I'll change my vote if and when I make up my mind between supporting or opposing. Both sides seem pretty powerful at the moment. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Above comment indented and struck; I have made up my mind to support the nomination. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Neutral A thoroughly polite and well intentioned user who appears to have a good idea of the machinations of Wikipedia in terms of AfD and vandal work. Some of the "opposition" have raised valid concerns about NuclearWarfare's editing. Personally I think NW is ready for the tools now but I also think he would make an even better Admin, with full community support, if nominated in six months time. In addition, I believe that not being an Admin would not affect the quality of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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.