NuclearWarfare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · count) All right, you all. Have you negative memories of your interactions with me? Feel that I'm doing something wrong? Well, this is your chance to tell me. If you even think that I have done the slightest thing wrong, please tell me, and I shall know to fix my error and my behavior for the future. Come on, don't be shy now.
I was also thinking about running for adminship again sometime later, so if anyone wants to comment on how they would (!)vote on my RfA and if oppose, why. I'd like to be able to fix my mistakes and not create drama at WP:RfA. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I heard from a friend that there were a few complaints over this Editor Review because it seemed like it is "straw poll for how I would do at RfA". While it is true that I intend to try my hand at RfA again at a future date, the main purpose of this is truly for me to figure out how I can improve myself as an editor, not as a potential admin candidate. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Just a quick comment: You should review the previous RFA and the comments people left when opposing you, comparing for yourself whether you have improved on those concerns. You might want to contact some of those opposers directly and ask them to comment in this review. Regards So Why 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, thank you. I had done the former, but not the latter. Several editors have now been invited; thanks for the advice. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, and are planning for an RfA: I'm a bit bothered by your user name. :)
It's not that big a deal for an editor, but I really don't ever want to see a block message "You've been blocked by NuclearWarfare", or even a "Please be civil. NuclearWarfare". To me, it doesn't seem appropriate.
Mellow greetings, Amalthea 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that is a good point, and I had never really thought of that. Since my account is fully unified, and I have edits on over 50 wikis, I don't really want to change my username. Do you have a suggestion on changing my signature so that this wouldn't be an issue? (I'm thinking back to all those Huggle, Twinkle, and handwritten warnings I've given out over the past year and shuddering :( ). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about shortening it to "NWF"? So Why 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - NWF works, but I remembered that somtimes to denote a status, I'll use "NW|away" or "NW|around" as my username. So, I have changed my signature to: NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)}. Thank you for your advice on my signature, both Amalthea, and SoWhy. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Q7, what is your view on the contradictions related to cool-down blocks in policy? — neuro^(talk) 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think there is a contradiction between a cool-down block and a civility block. I've always looked at a cooldown block as "I know what is best for you. You need a nice break from Wikipedia. Here, let me implement it for you.", while looking at civility blocks as "You are being disruptive and starting to harm the morale or the work of other users. You are blocked until you agree to fix this situation." NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually talking about the nature of being punitive/preventative in cool-down blocks. In a sense, any block which isn't indefinite is a cool-down block. — neuro^(talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In a sense, that is true. However, blocks should always be to stop future disruption to the encyclopedia. Any blocked user who the community is reasonably sure will not disrupt the encyclopedia in the future should be unblocked. Cool down blocks, at least in my view, are more of an administrator saying "I know what is best for you: a nice long break for you to think about what you are doing," while a block for disruption is more like "Your edits are actively harming the encyclopedia by inflaming tense situations, etc. I am going to block you until you realize that your actions were wrong and you will not do so in the future." Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do see a small nuance there; CDB and punitive blocks are meant as a paternalistic or punishing action, while good blocks should be made only in a manner that would protect the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that after putting a dated prod onto Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan you then proceeded to remove the link to it from Bhushan. The prod suggests people might "address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page" over the following seven days, so why are you removing links to the page? If someone were to transform the page into an acceptable WP article, would you then go back and replace links to it? Note that I am commenting on a matter of principle here, completely disregarding the particular qualities of the page in question. -- Hebrides (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I did that as more of a housekeeping move to tidy up for what I believed would be a completely noncontroversial decision in 7 days, but you are of course, correct. Looking back on it, I really should not have removed the link from the disambiguation page of Bhushan. If someone does indeed rewrite the article; I will readd that link, but in the future, I will remember to not remove the link at all until the article is deleted. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any concerns regarding your editing. Seen you around, and I think you're awesome. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
There are several areas of the encyclopedia at which I believe I have excelled. Since my RfA five months ago, I realized that I truly ought to put in some effort writing in writing articles, and I have had more fun doing that than anything else. Articles I have worked on can be seen on my userpage. In the past, I worked a lot with countervandalism and new page patrol; I still do that, but on a global scale now. I have also done a great deal of work in the account creation process, and I've recently been helping out at DYK reviewing. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I could give the standard answer to this, but there is really no point. WP:DR says everything there, and I usually try to keep it to the first step - gather a consensus on the talk page, though I hope I haven't been rude to anyone while doing so. Again, if I have, please tell me, and I'll try to make amends. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Where we stand" questions from iridescent prior to actually reviewing any of your edits; these are with the assumption that you're looking at this ER as a stepping stone to RFA, rather than from the viewpoint of content-creation.
What are your opinions (not "what you think we want to hear", and don't be afraid to say when you think policy is wrong) regarding:
1. Semi-protection of BLPs?
  A global semi-protection of BLPs? I'd probably oppose that. However, I've taken a look around, and User:Lar/Liberal Semi seems to have a good idea. My personal standard is something like this: If an article has been vandalized more than twice within a fairly short period, or at less regular intervals for a longer period by multiple IPs (not catchable with a rangeblock) or accounts, and the vandalism isn't caught by ~~j.delanoy~~ a RC patroller, it is appropriate to semi-protect (or hopefully, flag-protect) the article from anywhere from a week to several months. Merging User:Lar/Liberal Semi with WP:RfPP is the best way to go for semi-protection of BLPs, I think, not semi-protecting them across the board.
2. Flagged revisions?
  Flagged protection is...an interesting one, and I can't say I have really fully decided. When that big poll came out a few months ago, I was decidedly against it. I figured that it would end up much the same as Special:NewPages has, in a constant struggle to keep edits from falling off the end of the backlog. And I still somewhat feel that way. On the other hand, something besides "hope that RCP catches it" needs to be used for catching extreme POV or vandalism. I'm still very unsure on the idea of Flagged Revisions. Flagged Protection seemed fine to me, and perhaps a liberal use of that with a change in our blocking policy so that 1 BLP vandalism = multi-week block would be a good idea.
3. IRC?
  I see no problem with IRC. To me, it is simply a way to communicate about Wikipedia, get real time information on certain stalked pages, fight vandalism on small wikis, or create accounts for those who need them. I have never really understood the fuss about IRC. Then again, I do not participate in some the larger channels (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en) and primarily use IRC for coordination of things that would be too cumbersome to do on wiki. IRC is fairly useful, but not perfect, method of communication for getting things done quickly, which is why I still use it. I have heard the horror stories, such as Giano's RfAr, but I intend to and have stayed clear of any nonsense that involves blocking a non-blatant vandal if I pass an RfA.
  
  Full disclaimer: I use IRC. My usual channel list as follows: "##juliancolton (Juliancolton's private channel, with a very few number of users. The channel is open to all, and freenode staff monitor it, so it isn't a cabal), #wikipedia-en-accounts (the WP:ACC channel), #cvn-sw (small wiki countervandalism), #wikimedia-stewards (the stewards' channel), #stewardbot (A channel where I can enter commands to Pathoschild's IRC bot [global block, etc.] which will be carried out if he approves them), #cvn-simplewikis (countervandalism for the simple.projectname projecst, on request of another administrator), and the mostly-deprecated, but still somewhat used #wikipedia-en-alerts (bot reportings mostly)
4. Civility blocks?
  Ah, civility blocks, the dreaded bane of the community. Quite honestly, I have no idea how I would feel if I were to receive one, but I would hope that if I did, it would be for something I deserved after I received a warning and not something frivolous. I agree with the policy of implementing civility blocks when a user is becoming clearly disruptive, but I would really hate to implement them myself and think that at least two, but more if possible, administrators should come to a joint decision to implement a civility block, to make sure it isn't colored by personal feelings, as the block is a very subjective thing.
5. Ageism?
  As X! once succinctly, "If you want the usual teenager, AIV is thataway". A teenager who has worked here for an extended period of time will have likely shown that they are more mature than the vast majority of his peers. If are immature, that will be painfully obvious. Wikipedia is seen as a "geeky" thing to most middle and high school students. Geeky things tend to attract the geeks, who often are willing to spend hours and hours on building our encyclopedia. And that's all that really should matter. It doesn't matter who writes the articles, but rather, that they get written. Arbitrarily excluding users from the project on the basis of age (not maturity, which is completely different) is counterproductive to our Vision.
6. What the role and purpose of admins should be?
  Huh. This is a very interesting question. The editors who believe that adminship should be no big deal often say that "an administrator is simply an editor with a few extra buttons." I believe that this is the correct way to view the "bit". Administrators should not use their status to bully or push a PoV. They should merely continue acting how they would if they were a regular editor, but help out in a few additional areas as well. Any experienced editor (6 months+) in good standing should be treated the same as an adminstrator, nothing more, nothing less.
7. Cool-down blocks?
  Cool down blocks should not be used, as they will inflame the situation. Blocks for disruption to the project are acceptable, of course, but blocking any previously-constructive editor should always be done with great care and only when it is absolutely necessary.
8. IP editors?
  Everyone (well, almost everyone) starts off editing as an IP. Though a greater proportion of vandalism does come from IPs compared to newly created accounts, allowing IP editing is still vital. It is akin to tossing a 100 hooks into the ocean. You'll get 60 fish that are too small to eat and 39 that try to bite your hand off, but you will still get one nice perfect flounder. And it is worth tossing the other 99 hooks in there, even if they were all vandalism, which of course they aren't; IPs make good edits as well, it is worth keeping the hooks in the water just to get that one editor who sticks around.
9. WP:AOR and whether admin terms should expire?
  I approve of it. Admins have to be accountable for their actions in some way. RfAr is simply not a viable enough alternative, in my mind. What the community grants, it also ought to be able to take away. As for expiring terms, it would be a nice idea, but with the amount of hard calls that an administrator makes, a reconfirmation RfA often becomes impossible, even if the administrator did a fairly decent job, or even an excellent one. I understand where you are coming from with the expiring terms though; administrators do need to think of how the encyclopedia works from the average editor's point of view, rather than just an administrator who basically has complete freedom to do what he or she wishes, with the current extremely high standards for desysopping.
10. (and a real "no right answer" one to ponder): Does a demonstrable commitment to the project via a long history of high quality contributions entitle editors to more leeway when it comes to their behaviour and/or adherence to Wikipedia rules, custom and practice?
  It shouldn't. But it does. And quite honestly, this is quite a large problem for Wikipedia. You know the stories much better than I do, of course. Take someone like Giano II, for example. He is quite an excellent content contributor. On the other hand, when angry, Giano gets somewhat rude and abrasive. We're stuck in a Catch-22; the community would love his continued participation in article space, but would prefer that he doesn't stir up massive drama when he disagrees with someone. I won't pretend to know exactly what to do in these cases, except try to politely remind the user that we can all handle this maturely. I won't pretend that I have a solution for this, but hopefully one day we can find one.

Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I believe you are too aggressive and too nasty to be an administrator. However, work on controlling your temper and you can be a better person. The trouble with being nasty is that such behavior harms Wikipedia by chasing away others. If this happens, then the administrator, one who is supposed to help Wikipedia, actually harms the project. Don't get discouraged. If you really want to be an administrator, just be nice. User F203 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you had posted now-oversighted material, so I felt that this warning was appropriate. It was a strong warning, but it was meant to be, as I did want you to know how inappropriate that posting was. Please see this comment for more. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is nicer now, which is better. But blocking someone for life is a bit much particularly since it was sandbox material and not a real person's name or credit card number. It would be like saying "Nuclear Warfare's Visa card is issued by the Bank of the Klingon Empire and is card number 234 455 343, expiration date 12/31/2849" User F203 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

NW, as the recipiant of only one warning from you your warnings seem appropriate enough. Thank you for moderating Wikipedia so efficiantly. However, the information I posted, which you removed, is true and relevant. As an attendant of the school I can personally verify my postings (the tuition, the lack of jurisdiction under a dioscese and lack of accountability to a religious group, etc). Your removal of this information on the grounds of neutrality is a bit silly as the information is true and can be viewed positively or negatively. Please show a little less haste!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.