Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NonvocalScream (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 8 May 2008 (→‎Neutral: question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NonvocalScream

Voice your opinion (talk page) (4/8/2); Scheduled to end 19:31, 15 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)[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 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)[reply]

General comments

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yup, it does. =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check "Show preview on first edit" in the Editing section, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Oops, I was following the examples at MOSBIO. I'll re read the MOS. Very Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    So an arbitrator leaked it to you? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NonvocalScream&oldid=211132299"