Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare 2

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

NuclearWarfare

Final (141/4/1); Closed by Rlevse at 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan on using the tools at

RfPP

.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, 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 (

ANI

for user conduct issues) if that becomes necessary.

Questions from myself

Question from GlassCobra

7. As someone who opposed last time, but (in all honesty) does not have the time to check your contributions and activities since your last RfA, could you please give a brief overview of your actions in general since that time, as well as changes you made, if any, in your attitude and/or areas of contribution based on advice given at the RfA?

A. After my first RfA, I started working in content areas a lot more. At first, I worked in areas that I felt comfortable in – fiction mostly – but I have begun to work in more scholarly topics: education and history for the most part. For example, while I had previously worked with articles along the lines of

TV series lists, a few of most recent articles have been about an American doctor, a French highwayman, a Russian tutor, and an American educational competition

.

With regard to activities other than article writing: Before my last RfA, I had mainly involved myself with countervandalism activities. However, now I focus more on the areas of

New pages and files patrol

.

In terms of how I view and act on Wikipedia, I feel now I understand the value of communicating properly with editors. Ensuring that it is open to all, such as by ensuring that decisions are backed up by their own merits on wiki rather than off wiki in venues like IRC. Please do ask if you wish me to explain further; I would be happy to do so.

Question from Domer48

8. When granting a checkuser, what is the minimum evidence required? Using say this case for example.

A. All checkuser requests need to follow the

local Checkuser policy as well as the broader meta Privacy policy, which our local one is based off of. In a case where checkuser is required, I usually look for a number of commonalities between the accounts' editing styles, when they were created relative to events on a page, etc. which would generally indicate possible sockpuppetry, but not conclusively determine it. I think it is rather subjective, and I'm still fairly new at it, but the evidence required is essentially "a good deal, but not conclusive". As for the case you brought up, I agree that you highlighted one of my mistakes. In that particular case, Throwaway85 looked like an obvious sockpuppet. However, because both User:O Fenian and User:Throwaway85 had redlinked usernames, I confused the two, and the "Comments by other users" section looked to me like an obvious sockpuppet trying to prevent a check from being done. Nathan pointed out to me my mistake, but also noted this ANI thread, and asked Dominic

to run a checkuser to try to clear up that mess. I apologize for my mistake, and I will try to be more careful in the future.

9. Could you give what you would consider to be an example of fishing?

A. The actual definition of fishing is checking of an account for sockpuppetry without little or no evidence. However, it is worth noting that per Deskana's statement at

WP:Checkuser#"Fishing", it is acceptable to check an account even if it is unknown who the sockmaster is if there is other evidence to suggest that there is sockpuppetry going on. As for specific examples, this would be such a case. If checkuser had been asked for, this

would be another.

10.How as an administrator would you deal with spurious sock reports?

A. I would first take a cursory look to make sure the evidence is indeed spurious, and assuming that it was, I would close the case (possibly delete if the case was in continuation of some harassment) and warn the filing user. If there could possibly be some merit to the case but there is little evidence at the time, I would ask for more evidence and leave it up for no more than 48 hours. I would also confer with some of the full clerks (PeterSymonds, Nathan, or Jake Wartenberg) or Checkusers I work with to see if any additional action needs to be taken, as I am still somewhat new to the area.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

11. What is your opinion about

verifiable

without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I saw that you asked this question at

BLP1E

cases are good examples of this. If you need me to clarify something, feel free to ask.

Questions from Tony1

12 What is your opinion on the recent debate at

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Highly_restrictive_policy_on_second_accounts.3F

and lower down that page concerning proposals to tighten up on the policy WRT alt accounts?

A: I think that tightening up our policy regarding legitimate alternative accounts would be a good idea. I have read the entire page over, and I can see no reason why anyone would have to use two accounts simultaneously without posting a link on the userpage so that even a new user could figure out that they are linked.

13. Do you think it would be useful for ArbCom to consider the creation of a subcommittee of admins and non-admins to run a tightly constructed process such as

admin policy

? Be critical, please: has its time come, or is it unnecessary? Possible pitfalls? (AdminReview is still in draft form as a community-driven idea, and probably needs to be set out more simply.)

A: I think the idea of AdminReview is a good one; administrators need to be more responsible for there actions besides the dramamongering (and nothing else, usually) of ANI, and ArbCom, which is useful, but which doesn't work for long-term, low-level misuse of the tools. However, I do see some some problems with your draft of AdminReview. The main issue, is that there is nothing that can really come out of the case. The way I look at it, it seems to be a sort of structured mediation, but if the administrator is unwilling to resolve the problems and the issue isn't enough to take to ArbCom, nothing can really come out of the AdminReview.

Perhaps AdminReview would work better if it merged with ArbCom. Instead of accepting cases, perhaps ArbCom could defer a case to AdminReview, in hopes that the issue could be resolved with forced mediation through AdminReview rather than going through the long, free-for-all process of Requests for Arbitration. Anyway, that's my two cents.

14. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been very rude to another editor in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use such a strategy?

A: Of course. Blocking experienced contributors rarely solves problems; it just either worsens them or makes the problem go away for the time being. I would try to extend this courtesy to any experienced editor, despite any previous record of incivility they might have. NW (Talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for NuclearWarfare: NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for NuclearWarfare can be found here.

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

Discussion

• Accounts that I have edited with:
  talk · contribs
  )

1. As nominator. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. About time! I'm expecting a huge backlog soon. ceranthor 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Absolutely. wadester16 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Talk 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]
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)[reply]
7. Support, one of the most qualified users I can think of. The nom pretty much covered it all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)^{help us!} 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Support Generally knowledgeable, has clue. Shubinator (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, per Seddon. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^talk 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Triplestop x3 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support A qualified and great editor overall. NW will be a great admin. Timmeh (review me) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Qualified and deserves it. Huge net positive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, qualified editor who's very familiar with the areas he works in (specifically
    be kind to newcomers 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Support Great contributions and very friendly. Theleftorium 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Excellent work in SPI, clueful. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Durova³⁰⁵ 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Per everything said above. Cheers! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
22. Support definitely. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
24. Support. --[midnight comet] [talk] 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^talk 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Edit-conflicted Support Great candidate. Good luck with the tools, hmwitht 18:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
    ]
29. Strong o Support per above. One two three... 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Agreed, a great candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per above.
    SUL (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support - Absolutely. — 
    neuro^(talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
34. Support Just like last time on my part, hopefully not on the part of the whole RFA. Ray^Talk 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Yes of course! Airplaneman ^talk 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
37. Support; my interactions with him were positive. --
    fisto 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. A rare Strong Support It's rare that I feel like I know a candidate well enough to simply support without looking through his edit history, but I feel strong enough about Nukes to do so. He is a dedicated user and an asset to the community.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) NOTE: Moving down from strong support, while talking to Friday, I gave an [example of how he could have worded his oppose better, it is frightenly similar to VirtualSteve's oppose. I'm going to keep my !vote in Support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick comment, I decided to take a look at NW's CSD work and found somebody who fills a niche that most CSD'ers don't work in---images/files. From what I saw he looks solid in that area and the fact that he works a niche that needs help is only a plus.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39. Previous interaction has been rather positive.
     GARDEN  21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. NuclearYes.
    ^talk at 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support Balloonman's strong support says it all.User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong support. Iwondered when this one was coming! Anyway, user most definately has the clue an skills to be a great admin, and as stated, has overcome concerns raised in the last RFA. AtheWeatherman 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Brandon (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Fully Qualified. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Aye, as above. Alan16 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support should be a big net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I've run into NW here and there and he's always been a reliable editor to work with. Plus he certainly has the "chops" to be an admin. -- Atama^chat 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Nuclear Support Why isn't he one already? Absolutely trustworthy.
    ^{Wake me} 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. From his work at SPI -Stephen 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Darn, I just missed out on being the fiftieth supporter.--
    Sky Attacker 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Well, it's about time! I could write up a lengthy support, but really, I hardly need a rationale for NuclearWarfare. To put it in a few words, let's give this wonderful editor the mop he's so long deserved!
    Talk) 23:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
53. Nominator gives a convincing argument. @harej 00:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Bloody oath.
    The clock is ticking.... 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support Bombs away! Good luck!
    talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
56. No issues here. Useful user. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Way overdue. :) LittleMountain5 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - I've heard that it's bad practice to use WTHN as a reason for a RfA !vote, but, it seems appropriate to me in this case. Per
    WP:WTHN.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support, FWIW. One of the users I see around all the time, in numerous different areas. Fully trust this user to put the tools to good use. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Weak support, with recognition that I should not have opposed last time, I may have been feeling more belligerent that usual on that date. Weak though per the anal recall criteria, the complete silliness of the enforced wikibreak, and per Iridescent's concerns in the last RFA (a while ago, but they would seem to be long term personality traits). No reason to suspect that he will not be a net positive though. Icewedge (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Strong support - Solid contributor. AdjustShift (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Straight support from yours truly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support I remember your editor review, where someone asked you to change your signature to "NW" instead of "Nuclear Warfare". I don't think your username needs changing. NW is fine. And I see nothing else that might possibly cause concern. Aditya (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong support Very qualified. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Good answers to questions. Hardtofindaname 11:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Why not. All looks decent.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Good answers to questions. Accepting we are all human, and therefore fallible. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support I have worked with NW at SPI and I do not think he will abuse the tools. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. –xeno^talk 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: No doubt. The Flash ^{talk} 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I can't say anything that hasn't been said. →javért
    chat 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
73. Support per nom. --John (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support No-brainer.--
    2216firestar 18:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
75. Support per nom. No sonnet, though. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Meets standards, and nothing has been brought up to suggest the candidate will be a problem. Majorly talk 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support per nom and positive interactions.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support I waited a bit because I wanted to give potential opposers a chance to offer something of substance to change my mind. Since nothing has appeared, why wait? I am impressed by NW's calm demeanor and his diverse range of contributions. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Fully qualified candidate. I apologize for the absence of rhyme here, but may add a quatrain later on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Replacing !vote with better one, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

79. Support - To be honest I would have liked to have seen a bit more time between RfAs, but that does not change the fact that I feel NW is qualified for the tools. Keep up the good work at SPI by the way. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. I see an improvement in overall knowledge and experience. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I do not see any
    Matheuler 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support. Having been his admin coach, I can testify that NuclearWarfare has matured vastly in his editing and outlook since then. He's a pleasure to edit with, and I'm convinced that he'll do us good as an admin. bibliomaniac15 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support While I know NW has been overeager in the past to help out, I think he has managed to temper his zeal and has always had the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Always got good impressions from the candidate's activity.--Caspian blue 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support
    talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. Support Very qualified candidate. -download ׀ sign! 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - I do not have any concerns that NuclearWarfare would abuse the tools. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Finally —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support as I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever. --
    •wicke 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
92. Support A Fine candidate   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, NuclearWarfare. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - per this among other noble acts.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Strong Support. I have seen nothing but good from NW, and I see him all over the place helping out. He's a good editor, and I think he'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Unfortunately, I have not been (and probably won't be) able to review you as thoroughly as I would like. I therefore have to go with my gut feeling, and a clear recollection that my interactions with you have been very positive. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Weak Support Saw in your contribs you sometimes argue for deletion a bit more strongly than im happy with. Otherwise excellent candidate, fully deserving your imminent WP:100. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. How did I miss this RfA?
    Tan | 39 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
99. Support I admit I have not had too much interaction with Nuke but I have found him friendly, helpful, and willing to get down and dirty in the areas that need some tough work (
    WP:FAC image reviews are truly a coalition of the willing.) Plenty of solid article contribs, and as that was the major issue at his last RfA I don't feel like there should be much in the way of lingering doubts. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    WP:100! :D --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

    ]

100. Nathan ^T 14:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support per all above. I don't see any problems. Bart133 ^{t c @} 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support plenty of experience. Just the sort of person needed for this laborious job.
     talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
103. I'm
     Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
104. support Yes. Excellent candidate. Will do a good job. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Thought he was one. Established, qualified candidate. Has made positive contributions as an editor and will as an admin, I am confident.
     talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     Though I strongly encourage you to change your username, as you have said you intend to, to something less aggressive. My first impression of you was rather negative, based on your choice of name, which seemed, to me anyway, a pretty belligerent and disruptive name.

     talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

     ]

106. Support ...

     Each candidate in the wiki-court

     Of RfA earns some praise or curses.

     NuclearWarfare gains my support

     In rhyming verses.

     Nuclear works the SPI maze,

     And has over forty thousand edits.

     He has now a dozen DYKs

     Amongst his credits.

     He's civil; when there is trouble, he

     Does not go around other users blaming:

     A good thing, as we wouldn't want to see

     NuclearWarfare flaming.

     He had RfA trouble once before,

     But this near-unanimous vote is super.

     I think that opposer Friday's sure

     A party pooper.

     So after we hear the people speak

     On this page, here's hoping that one week later,

     A 'crat will make NuclearWarfare an

     Administrator.

     Edwin Arlington Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Nuke's got what it takes

     Now can he get more verses than Jake's? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

107. A definite Support for a great user. Regarding the username issue (and although I hate to sound corny), I think Shakespeare sums it up best, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     You hate to sound corny? NW (Talk) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Don't make me swing the other way... Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     'Tis but thy name that is my enemy.

     Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

     What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

     Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

     Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

     What's in a name? That which we call a rose

     By any other name would smell as sweet.

     So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

     Retain that dear perfection which he owes

     Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;

     And for that name, which is no part of thee,

     Take all myself.

     I always thought those two lines were the least powerful part of this. The more I read this play the more astonished (and proud) I am that high schools have 9th graders read it. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

108. Support Great user. Username issue will probably bring more laughs than problems (e.g. NuclearWarfare deleted article xyz, or NuclearWarfare protected article zyx). No problems here. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Just see what happens if we enable mw:Nuke. :) Protonk (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Protonk, we did. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

109. Support. Per Newyorkbrad.
     Lara 04:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
110. <insert>
     Vogon poetry</insert> Keegan (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
111. Support
     talk | 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
112. Oppose. Sends a wrong signal to EB and ED. Will spark off an arms race. (on second thought, that sounds kinda awesome!) Benders Game 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Will make a great administrator. Shappy ^talk 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Seems to have made positive steps since last RfA, can be trusted with the tools. GlassCobra 20:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. I've seen NuclearWarfare around often, and I think he does very good work. Acalamari 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support clearly dedicated, worth a shot with the mop. Opposers' issues are not deal-breakers for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support per Cas. Tony (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Strong Support - No poem here, just support :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support No worries at all. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Your not an admin already? Anyway, my reason for support is already written by the users ahead of me.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Looking back at the last RFA, and now this, I see enough improvement not to be concerned. America69 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support, my interactions with this editor have been positive, and he knows when to compromise. Good admin qualities. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. I have read the opposes from this RfA and some of the opposes from the previous one, and I find them unpersuasive. I can't say that I've ever had much of a reason to think of this editor negatively. —Animum (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support, but don't change your username. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support, no worries here.
     -- Banjeboi 09:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
127. Support per myself, because i know the candidate is good. Wizardman 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support - I could have sworn that I supported this nom already, but a CTRL-F reveals nothing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Throwing another log on the nuclear fire. --
     ^ssnɔsıp 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
130. Support Once again, I had no idea that this user was not yet an admin.  
     (Talk)  04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
131. Support Wait... so you tell me he wasn't one? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. I am not convinced by the oppose votes. The request for self block may be a bit odd, but that has no bearing on the candidate's behavior towards others, which is the main criterion for my votes. — Sebastian 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     (indented) Extremely strong supportHaven't I already voted? Strange.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 05:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Already !voted above  7  06:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Oops. Sorry.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

133. Support I have no worries about the candidate and I'm sure he'll make a fine admin.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • )} 15:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support per above.
     talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]
135. Support. No major concerns. — Σxplicit 23:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support - he has improved a great deal since his last RFA, and now seems thoroughly qualified for adminship. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support - NuclearWarefare has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing over a extended period of time, has answered all question well, and I have found no recent issues in his record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support - I thought he already was an admin.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 03:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Cautious support I'm disinclined to support any candidate known to spend an excessive amount of time on IRC, but NW generally seems clueful. Don't make me regret this by collaborating on blocks via IRC. AniMate^draw 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support Pile-on support. faithless (^speak) 08:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support - Excellent editor. Quite frankly, poeple like this should be banned for not having a large sign saying "I'm not an admin yet" on their userpages. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I see several valid concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare. What has changed in the months since then? He's still a chat room kid young person, right? Friday (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In Q7, Nuke addressed how he's changed since his last RfA. And the last bit isn't even worth responding to, so I won't.

   be kind to newcomers 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   The last comment from Friday was completely unneeded, and I have left him a message regarding this. Majorly talk 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (Note: I changed the word "kid", which I had not realized is offensive in some parts of the world. It was meant to be a simple statement of fact, not name-calling. Sorry about that. ) Friday (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Only it isn't a statement of fact. the prefix 'chat room' (especially when used to create the obviously pejorative "chat room kid") isn't neutral. It's perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that he's too young to be an admin (I guess minds can differ on that) or that he is too immature to be an admin, but I don't think it is fair to brush off criticisms by announcing that you are stating a "fact". Protonk (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That sort of personal attack is inappropriate at an RfA. Or anywhere else, for that matter. See

   WP:NPA. Why admins get a free pass to make this sort of comment is beyond me. Drawn Some (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Oppose I have noted your good work across the 'pedia however I am opposing on the basis of relatively recent request for self-blocking which you refer to in answer to your self-question 5 (and which for some reason you have collapsed making it less likely for people to open and read!). I note that blocking comes months after your first RfA. I have read the detail provided by Dragonflysixtyseven and the reason for blocking provided seems to indicate further reason to pause before supporting. I add, that whilst I read the overall comment as a joke, your discussing of a most unusual self-block on IRC simply because you were unable to stop editing wikipedia, does however lead me to agree with the "chat room" part of Friday's oppose. I hasten to add that I have no problem with Nuclear Warfare's age per se.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Your oppose is written in a fair, polite and courteous way, unlike Friday's. Why would anyone go to your talk page to complain about it? I think it's perfectly reasonable, and I'm even slightly swayed by it. Majorly talk 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well thank you kind Sir, as I indicated on my talk page (following a comment received there) I do not have a problem with the candidate's age and only after I formed my own opinion did I visit Friday's page thereupon seeing the rebuff he received on the age component I thought it wise to return here and add a further bit. Nuclear Warfare knows me enough (as most do) to understand that age is not a general concern I ever have at RfA and it is only my concern over his IRC request concerning self-blocking (considering he was obviously a future 2nd time round RfA candidate in the making at the time of that request) that I have trouble with. Thanks again.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Sorry, I can't support any candidate who states they are open to recall.
   talk) 03:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Very interesting <strokes chin slowly> wadester16 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Why? Isn't being open to recall supposed to be good? Airplaneman ^talk 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Some people think it's some sort of "cabal" or otherwise shows that the admin doesn't trust his own judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's an empty campaign promise. There are no teeth behind it and some people feel that anybody who claims to be willing to be recalled is doing so basically to gain points at RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I am not saying this is the rational of SBHB, but it's the rationale I've seen in the past.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's my rationale, and, goddamit, I want royalties. Or at least a shout-out. :P Skinwalker (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm... interesting. I've always thought that if an admin were to not be open to recall that it would look arrogant. Airplaneman ^talk 06:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a catch22...you are damned either way you answer it. I think I've only seen one person who has answered the question "Will you be open to recall" in a manner that appeased both sides. (If I am not mistaken, it was Biblio's RfB where he gave the perfect answer.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. Cool3 (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Any reason for your oppose? Remember it's not a vote. Regards Aaroncrick (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Why is it asked when it is an oppose and not a support vote? Likeminas (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is assumed supports are agreeing with what the nomination says. Why would such a support need to fluff out their comment just repeating what the nom says? It's pointless. On the other hand, an opposer is disagreeing with the nomination, but no reasoning has been given, anywhere. So it's reasonable to ask opposers. Majorly talk 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the explanation. I had not assumed that, but it does sound reasonable. Likeminas (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The reason why you opposed would also be help the editor fix the issues concerning you. Just saying 'oppose' doesn't help the candidate at all. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that's one reason why some people might oppose. One might also oppose because they feel some past action or some current condition makes the candidate totally unfit for adminship. In which case no amount of change on the part of the candidate could rectify the problem. And also, in the basest sense, people oppose because they don't want the request to succeed. While I think it is best practice for opposers to offer constructive criticism, there is no 'actionable oppose' requirement a la FAC. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Recall promises are made ad captandum vulgaris, and are completely unenforceable. I must question the judgement of any candidate who commits to such a broken process. Skinwalker (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The same could be said of anything related to adminship. NW tells us we can trust him to handle the tools responsibly, but we can't verify this. He could go on a rogue blocking rampage immediately upon being sysoped. In promoting NW to +sysop (which seems likely at this point), we lend him our trust to handle the tools with care, so that trust should extend to his statements regarding recall. Just a thought. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral I realize that I'm not taking the popular stance here, but I do have concerns. Primarily my thoughts revolve around the late April incident, and my concerns for NW as a person, rather than a WP editor. I think that NW does some great work, and I'm not normally one to !vote simply because of an ageism argument, but I do think it's important to have WP and real life in perspective, and to be able to maintain self-control. School needs to come first, and I compliment you on realizing that. WP is an important endeavor, but it is only a website. Being able to walk away when either there are emotional involvements here, or duties to attend to in real life is important to your future success in the world. I do think your work here is excellent, but please keep it in perspective. I won't buck the community consensus on this ("oppose"), and I hope that you'll be able to separate yourself in the future without the need of scripts or assistance. Best of luck. —
    ?  01:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
   ]