Commons:Administrators/Requests/NuclearWarfare

Vote

Links for candidate: NuclearWarfare (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate NuclearWarfare (NW for short) for adminship. NW already holds the positions of trusted user and rollbacker here at Commons, and sysop at the English Wikipedia. Additionally, Nuke is a global rollbacker, which requires very high levels of trust. His contributions include flickr reviewing, categorizing files, dealing with licensing issues and uploading new images, though he knows how to deal with copyright violations. I know most users look for extensive interaction with the community in admin candidates, and while NW is not the most active editor we have, he has definitely demonstrated a need for the tools (I receive endless requests for speedy deletion and file protection related to enwiki!). NuclearWarfare is familiar with major copyright policies, and certainly knows what adminship entails. I believe we can trust him in this added responsibility. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly surprised by this, but I guess adminship here would be useful. Thank you for the nomination Julian. NW (Talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support As nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Yes, I have had good interactions with him on the English Wikipedia. Seems to have the experience and trust to be an admin here as well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support. --Aitias (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Per Julian. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, per MBisanz. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The more, the better - NW seems to be trusted. odder (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support As trustworthy here as on en.wiki. Regards SoWhy 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Sorry, I would like to see more active involvement in the Commons community before granting sysop.-rights here. It's not a question of trust (I've seen NW around elsewhere and know he is eager and hardworking) - I just don't think he's ready for Comsysop yet. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Vyk (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per blurpeace. — Jake Wartenberg 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Are you sure the closure date is ok? Sv1xv (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  adjusted Lycaon (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I can't support someone with a soft redirect on their talk page. It looks like you have no problem using your talk page here so I'm not opposing. I just don't think when users come to admins for help or to ask a question about a deletion or something they should see a message implying they should go to another project. Rocket000 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The soft redirect was there from almost a year ago, when I only occasionally used commons. I never really remembered to remove it. I shall do so now; thank you for the reminder. NW (Talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I think will be good idea if candidate will participate more in community matters and user interaction. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm certainly surprised by this - that's a disconcerting comment in an acceptance. Does NW actually need this and plan to use it? Also, as EZ says... more participation is better. Inclined to oppose without prejudice to a try later. Commons adminship shouldn't be a badge to collect but rather something that one wants to have because one wants to help, at least a little. So some clarification needed I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment of surprise was just because Julian wrote the nomination with consulting with me first. I do plan on using the sysop flag if I get it; for example, I am perfectly willing to go and clean up Category:Unknown, as I have been doing the same on enwiki for some time now, and the backlog for that looks fairly bad now. Sysop would also be helpful with keeping enwiki's main page protected more efficiently. NW (Talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a good sign that NW is not desperate for the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]