Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] NonvocalScream

FINAL (4/18/6); closed per WP:SNOW by (non-crat/non admin) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs) - I'd like to have the tools in order to assist at requests for page protection and articles for deletion. I'm sure there will be more places, but these two I like. I've been editing with NonvocalScream sine Feb 18 of this year and a few edits with User:WordMachine. I do have a prior account which I no longer edit under, and it has never been blocked and is not/has not been under any sanction. Thank you all for your consideration. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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 work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll work at requests for page protections a few times a day. Does not take long to handle some requests. I will also evaluate consensus in accordance with our deletion policy and the community's wishes on each AFD that I close. I think it should be said that I will not use my tools on any article or content dispute that I am involved in, or have a bias towards.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are those to the Biography of Living People. It is very important that we get these right. So when I can remove an unsourced edit, or assist with a more complex issue, it helps the project. This is my favorite area of work. I've also done some heavy merge work to Ircd.
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've had a couple. Twice I've done 2RR (I believe) only to revert myself because, edit warring is not helpful, and I understand that. I've gotten heated at WT:TOV a couple of times. To handle disputes, I usually disengage. There is no deadline, so it does me no harm to get up from the computer and go have a smoke, coffee, or change my hobby for the day altogether. Just depends. I think it is unacceptable to edit war, call editors bad names, and make points using the project.

Optional (ha) question by Keeper

4.You've stated that your best contributions are those to BLPs. Care to give a few examples where you've "gotten them right"?
A. We strive for neutrality, so it is ok to report criticism, and report what the sources say, but we did not get it right with these descriptives. When the subject raises privacy issues, I will at times, request sourcing for a date of birth. Another subject requested help, and I requested sources. Sometimes a subject will ask for deletion. If I agree the notability is questionable, I will nominate the article. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A-
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A-
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A-
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A

Optional question from Naerii:

12. Do you plan on putting yourself open to recall? What are your views on the recall system?

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Having done some very through research into this users history, I'm sure this user is more than fit to be an administrator. This user has experience in all the required areas, even if some of you don't want him to be an admin. This user has plenty of experience, and I wish I could put this under support.--193.120.116.180 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to the candidate - Suggest that they withdraw this nomination because..of..well...WP:SNOW. None of us can do it since we've participated in this discussion already, and it is likely that there will be no more "unique" feedback that you can latch onto. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Beat the nom Support I can trust this user with the mop. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. RfAs are community discussions as to the judgment of a particular candidate, and whether or not in can be felt that the candidate can be trusted with the tools. Most of the time, this decision, at least for me, needs to be made based on a significant wiki history, in order to have a suitable basis on which to make the decision, and a relative certainty that the character traits exhibited are real. Rarely, there comes an exception to this. I have interacted with NonvocalScream, and seen how he handles certain very difficult cases on behalf of wikipedia and other projects, and these observations allow me the comfort to be able to extend my trust to NonvocalScream, notwithstanding his lighter-than-average wiki experience. -- Avi (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. EC Support. After a while looking through contribs, I see nothing glaring to fault. But one thing; please preview before saving: it may look like you're trying to boost your stats. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ok. I'm going to hunt me up a forced preview javascript. (unless prefs has the option when I visit them later). Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yup, it does. =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Check "Show preview on first edit" in the Editing section, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - absolutely trustworthy and has considerably more clue than most who get the nod from the community (invariably for all the wrong reasons). Nick (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Between the two accounts, less than 400 mainspace edits, almost all minor reverts; one of the silliest AFD noms I've yet seen only only three days ago; a week before that, taking "subject requests deletion" as a deletion criteria, and again a week before that. Despite the many articles you've nominated for deletion, a look at your deleted contribs shows that you've only ever had the community agree with you on two occasions (1, 2), one of which you then blanked for no apparent reason. For all I know, you have a fantastic record on your other accounts, but going by the two accounts you've given us, there's nothing to support. — iridescent 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    My nominations won't affect my interpretation of consensus on AFD closures, I can assure. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Three hundred and sixty mainspace edits in 4.5 months isn't enough to judge a person's fitness for adminship. Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, I was really unimpressed with your behaviour in an MFD a month or so ago (I don't remember what it was for, but it involved LawrenceCohen IIRC). Whilst you were not solely to blame I felt your obtuse and confusing responses (I only edit by this account name/I have accounts on other wikis) escalated the conflict when a simple explanation would have done. And add to that the fact that you only have an (observable) history from the last two months - not really enough experience, especially not in the mainspace. -- Naerii 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    It was this nomination, the one which I now understand was in error, I took a hard stance on banned users there. He said some bad things about me, and we sorted it out faithfully. Very best!, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough, everyone makes mistakes, but I still think you need more experience and time here before I can support you. Sorry :( -- Naerii 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)Ah I found the MFD. Your really weird nominating rationale concerns me too. lol @ the irony of me opposing on an mfd when i was myself opposed for an mfd on my own rfa just a few days ago.. who am i to talk? :p -- Naerii 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose -- Although I view edit counts as a very crude way of determining user's abilities, I think you ought to wait a while until you have some more...sorry!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose While you may be on the right track, the track is a very long one and you have a-ways to go. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe I should drop the poetry and pick up the prose. What I meant to say is that you're doing a fairly decent job so far but we need to see you handle yourself well in different situations over a longer period of time than has passed since you started editing. My advice is to give it at least a few more months of this kind of activity and try again. By then someone else might nominate you for adminship and you won't have to debate Kurt on his stale logic that's sure to come your way before the end of this day. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Reluctant Oppose I think NonvocalScream handled himself well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Guppy (2nd nomination), a sure sign in my opinion that he can work with concensus when it goes against him. However, I am concerned with his policy understanding - he cites his best contributions as being in the BLP area, yet he doesn't seem to be familiar with arguably the most basic style guideline regarding these articles [1]. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oops, I was following the examples at MOSBIO. I'll re read the MOS. Very Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. (ec) Oppose. Not enough experience yet. You're getting there, and your work is pretty good (a few mistakes here and there, but who doesn't make those?), but I am a big supporter of the mainspace (it's the whole reason we're here). Please do some more mainspace editing and keep up the good work. I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. I'm really sorry but I have to oppose, you simply do not have the necessary experience for me to trust you with the tools. I'm not sure, exactly, what Iridescent was on about because your edits do not seem to all be minor edits/reverts; however, you still do not have the necessary experience. Sorry and good luck and happy editing! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak oppose with moral support - Come back with some more mainspace edits in say, 6 months or so and I will more than likely turn this into a support. :) asenine say what? 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - I normally eschew pile ons. 1.)Edit count isn't that great an indicator, but sometimes it works. Your article contributions are sorely lacking. 2.)Your tenure here is shortlived. 3.)I see some experience issues that need addressing. I suggest WP:ER at a few points down the road. Come back in 4-5 months. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Sorry, not enough edits in the mainspace. On the right track though, and once you have 2,000+ edits there I'll support. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose -- Yeah, way too soon. -- Semifreddo (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Firm no Too many bad judgement calls for my liking. We already have enough drama-mongering admins among us. Appears to be more interested in process and politics than writing an encyclopedia. Sorry, but I can imagine too many issues with you being promoted. Al Tally (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Stong oppose- behaviour looks suspiciously familiar lol- could we possibly have a checkuser please, if any possibilities can still be checked? If we might have this person as an admin, we have a right to know who we're getting. On the other hand, no doubt this person has waited for any previous accounts to be unable to have expired from checkuser and unable to be checked, before going to RfA. A lot of people know or suspect full well who this is- why aren't we allowed to mention what other voters need to be aware of to make an informed decision? Merkin's mum 23:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I consent to checkuser, if the checkuser limits mention of account names or IP's. Only to tell us abusive use/nonabusive use NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Merkins, NVS -- we don't usually do checkuser to "prove innocence", although we can and in some cases where its especially valid, we may. What I would normally ask is for Merkin's to contact me or another checkuser, and explain the evidence (to ensure its not fishing and there really is a valid basis of concern in edits or behaviors). If the grounds are good, then at RFA, to avoid doubt or abuse, yes, I personally might well do so, even though it's not a norm. RFA isn't your usual situation. In this case though, the current voting is currently around 4-16 against, so it doesn't look like there is actually a present need right now (sorry!). That said, if despite this you feel abusive sockpuppetry has gone on and needs examination, or there is still a need to request checkuser, please do contact me or post at SSP/RFCU, and I or another checkuser would be glad to consider it further. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't mind so much, I just think people have a right to know who they're voting for. I understood that if someone went for RfA they automatically opened themselves to a possible check- but come to think of it I think that isn't so. I agree that unless the "votes" become closer there's no need for a checkuser. Hopefully NVS will learn from this RfA anyway- the controversial moves at AfDs are the same pattern as his possible previous account, so it's clear he hasn't changed. He needs to change his modus operandi before people think he's a good candidate for the tools.Merkin's mum 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Four supports prevents me from speedy closing this, but I strongly suggest withdrawing the nom. 1200 edits and 4 months of activity isn't enough to show competency with the policies/guidelines.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Not ready to support this candidate yet, although I believe that they may be decent sysop in the future, should they be nominated again. I simply do not believe this candidate has enough experience yet. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Keep up the good work and in a few months I'll probably be willing to change my mind. You say you want to do work with page protection and deletion, so make sure you keep spending time there so we can see how you interact with others when your next RfA comes around. --CapitalR (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. Thanks for the diffs for Q4. While I believe you certainly have the best interests of Wikipedia (and its articles and article subjects, specifically Living Persons) at heart, I'm not convinced of your aptitude as an admin because of a general lack of experience. You have used, presumably, your right to vanish, which is fine, but again, as a new user in that case, with no history to rely on for determining a level of trust in your contributions, I don't see enough to support. The good news is that I don't see enough to oppose either. Cheers, thanks for answering my question. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Anytime... it gave me a chance to reflect on earlier work. I should go thru my contribs more regularly. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Well rounded in deletion and administrative areas, but opposes are a tad in the negative direction. Nice nomination statement. Rudget (Help?) 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. IMO, you should get more experience in the Namespace, brush up on your editing a bit, and try again in 4 months. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. I am weakly leaning towards trusting this account, in spite some of the issues above. However, I am unable to support because of the issues raised by this person's past account, which are yet to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. (And I agree, it did have a clean block log...consider that "certified".) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Respectfully... I don't think you can certify anything. No one but the arbitration committee knows about the past account. Anything else is really... guessing. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't intend to reveal the account's name here, merely to inform you that I am not an Arbitration Committee member, and yet I know the name of your prior account, hence being able to confirm that it had a clean block log. You are welcome to email me if you don't believe me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Struck per private correspondence with NonvocalScream. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - to avoid pile on. Sorry Scream, but I agree with much of the comments in the oppose section. Tiptoety talk 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral because I'm worried about who this user may be and I can't back someone who may have done something outrageous in the past, yet can't oppose someone who may not have George The Dragon (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above 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.