Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:38, 19 August 2009 editAirplaneman (talk | contribs)Administrators46,545 edits →Support: ...← Previous edit Revision as of 20:55, 19 August 2009 edit undoOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →SupportNext edit →
Line 88: Line 88:
#'''Support''' Just like last time on my part, hopefully not on the part of the whole RFA. <strong>]</strong>] 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) #'''Support''' Just like last time on my part, hopefully not on the part of the whole RFA. <strong>]</strong>] 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Yes of course! ] ''<sup>]</sup>'' 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) #'''Support''' Yes of course! ] ''<sup>]</sup>'' 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - He was invaluable in dozens of DYK and quite a few GAs that I have put together. ] (]) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


=====Oppose===== =====Oppose=====

Revision as of 20:55, 19 August 2009

NuclearWarfare

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (36/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) – NuclearWarfare, active since October 2007, is one of the most dedicated and hardworking non-admin users we have currently on this project. Since his last RFA, 9 months ago, he has grown and used his potential to blossom into a outstanding contributor to the project. With a total edit count of 42000+, he has created new and quality content, creating 7 DYKs, collaborating on a futher 3, bringing a GA to Featured Article, producing a Featured List and a Good Article, all since his last RFA.

This content work balances his experience working in key admin areas such as being a clerk at Sockpuppet investigations, numerous reports to AIV and work at both WP:CSD and new page patrol. He is also a global rollbacker, and helps out with cross-wiki counter-vandalism (Global Contributions for reference).It is clear that his participation to the project and giving him use of the +sysop bit, is one that will be a net positive.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you NuclearWarfare, an example of an outstanding asset to the community.

Seddσn | 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for that wonderful nomination, Seddon. NW (Talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on using the tools at Sockpuppet investigations, where I am currently a trainee clerk, and where the administrator tools would be helpful for dealing with post-checkuser results or obvious DUCK blocks. In addition, I have worked extensively in countervandalism in months past, and am still somewhat active in this field. I will continue working in both C:CSD and NPP, as that is an area where I have a great deal of experience and which often needs help. I would also continue to help out at AIV and RfPP.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: On my last request for adminship, I claimed credit for several FLs that when I look back, I am sure that I did not really contribute to those articles significantly. Prior to January, I had been more of a routine-maintenance contributor, doing the standard antivandalism things: Huggle, New Page Patrolling, occasional AfDs, etc. Since then, I have reevaluated myself, and since decided to more directly contribute to the encyclopedia. Among my 20,000 non-automated edits over the past 15 months are contributions to DYKs, GAs, and featured content, a list of which can be found on my userpage, as well as BLP, POV, and generic cleanup. Out of all of those articles, I would have to say that I am most proud of Nikita Zotov. In addition to content work, I have also worked extensively with a variety of other tasks, ranging from New Page Patrol to image reviews at FAC to Sockpuppet Investigations work. I would simply continue working in the same areas if I became an administrator.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I would to handle any conflict, major or minor, as I have in the past, with reasonable discussion on either article or user talk pages. I do not anticipate ever having to go beyond that, but in the event that I must, I will request outside opinion at the appropriate venues (3O and MEDCAB for content disputes and WQA and ANI for user conduct issues) if that becomes necessary.
Questions from myself
A list of questions that I have asked myself to more clearly explain a few things
4. Do you have a recall process in mind?
A. I truly believe that all administrators should be accountable for their actions, and that adminship should be both easier to gain, and easier to lose. Because of that, I have written up for myself a recall procedure, located at User:NuclearWarfare/Recall. Please do take a look, and inform me on the talk page if you think that there is anything with it that I can improve.
5. You have two blocks in your block log, one from 15 January 2009 and another from 21 April 2009. Please explain.
A. The one from January was a simple mistake; I accidentally ran an anti-vandalism script on myself instead of a Grawp page move vandal, and I ended up reversing several of the last page moves that I had done, which had been Grawp vandalism reverts. Prodego saw this and quickly indefinitely blocked me before the script got out of hand, and J.delanoy unblocked me as soon as the script hit a loop and died. As for the April block, that has has an interesting story. I had an important competition the few days around April 25, and I really needed to study. I locked myself out of my Misplaced Pages account via Wikibreak enforcer, but as I was studying later that evening, I remembered this one prod that I had placed, but which might have not stuck. I bypassed the Wikibreak enforcer, and viewed the article's history, and sure enough, it hadn't. I logged on to IRC and asked the first administrator that I saw, DragonflySixtyseven, if he could file an AfD for me. I can't remember if he did or not, but he also recognized the fact that I really didn't need to be wasting my time with Misplaced Pages when I had such more important matters to worry about. Though we both knew that self-asked-for blocks are usually not done, he suggested that we bend those rules a little bit. I don't fault him at all for that block.
6. What is with your username and signature? Do you think they seem a bit aggressive?
A. The history of my username is rather a boring story. In October 2007 when I was creating my first account and couldn't think of a username that was not already taken, I just picked a user name of the article which I was reading at the time, which happened to be Nuclear warfare. As for the aggressiveness, perhaps that is true; yes. Since a few users have pointed that out, I have been thinking about changing that. I listed a possible few on my user page. I did know, however, that users generally don't like to see people renaming immediately before an RfA, and so I decided to hold off on renaming until after an RfA, so that editors will be able to more clearly recognize me and instantly make connections with who I am. In addition, there are still a few things with my global account (registered to ~750 projects, with edits on about a third of them) that I need to work out before I rename. Per recommendations at my editor review, I have shortened my signature in the meantime. If people have any suggestions for this, I will be glad to here them, either here or on my talk page.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. As nominator. Seddσn | 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. About time! I'm expecting a huge backlog soon. ceranthor 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Absolutely. wadester16 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Having read through the oppose section of the previous RfA, I find the opposes unconvincing even for the time and would have !voted support then had I been active then. -- Soap /Contributions 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support Oh yes. Why the hell not? Of course. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support When I started contributing to the project Nuke was already an established user. He has always impressed me as a knowledgeable, trustworthy, and dedicated contributor. — Jake Wartenberg 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support, one of the most qualified users I can think of. The nom pretty much covered it all. –Juliancolton |  17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Strong support - Wow, we've been having a slew of awesome candidates lately! NW is one of the best possible candidates, period. Only 2 users (both of whom are running right now) have larger support from me. :D Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. (edit conflict) Support per last time. This time, I am even more ready to support. Past experience shows that NW is able to address concerns mentioned and rectify problems (refer to Q6 for example) and I have not seen any contribs to the contrary. Regards SoWhy 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support Generally knowledgeable, has clue. Shubinator (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support, per Seddon. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support - I'd pretty much managed to forget he'd failed his previous RfA, in my mind he's pretty much an admin already. A mature and sensible user who has repeatedly demonstrated his dedication to the project, NW is an excellent choice for adminship. ~ mazca 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support Triplestop x3 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support A qualified and great editor overall. NW will be a great admin. Timmeh (review me) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support Qualified and deserves it. Huge net positive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support, qualified editor who's very familiar with the areas he works in (specifically SPI). Positive contribs, clueful, would definitely put the tools to good use. JamieS93 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support Great contributions and very friendly. Theleftorium 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support - Excellent work in SPI, clueful. J.delanoyadds 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  19. Strong support. I offered him an unsolicited conomination, but Nuke has received so many offers that he turned it down politely and went with just one. Has all the right stuff: strong content, the patience for drudge work, and tact. A class act. Eminently moppable. Durova 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support. Per everything said above. Cheers! Vicenarian 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  21. I, like many above, have been laboring under the mistaken belief that you were already a sysop. A very strong Support to clear up my own confusion as you are incredibly deserving of the tools. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support definitely. Thingg 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support I supported last time. Had some conversations with the candidate in the intervening time and I think that he has learned what could be learned from the feedback generated there. good luck. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support. -- 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support. I've very little to say as the 24 supporters above me have covered it all. Good luck, though I doubt you'll need it. VI 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  26. Edit-conflicted Support Great candidate. Good luck with the tools, hmwitht 18:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  27. (edit conflict) Strong oppose as an attention-getting reconfirmation RfA. Wait - he wasn't an admin already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  28. Strong oppose per King of Hearts. Having worked with him at WP:SPI and observing his admin-like conduct, I swore he was an admin :) MuZemike 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  29. Strong o Support per above. One two three... 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  30. Agreed, a great candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support per above. SUL (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support - Absolutely. — neuro 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  33. How the hell are you not one already? Strongest possible support, and suggest lynching of any opposers (sarcasm alert). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  34. Support Just like last time on my part, hopefully not on the part of the whole RFA. Ray 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support Yes of course! Airplaneman 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  36. Support - He was invaluable in dozens of DYK and quite a few GAs that I have put together. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose


Neutral