Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/NonvocalScream

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.

NonvocalScream[change source]

NonvocalScream (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: 06:15 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Crat note: May be eligible for early closure at 06:15 15 March 2010 EhJJTALK 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use the crat tools. I'm very interested in working RFP and the BOTS page when I'm able. I have the ability to make sound judgement with regards to the technical matters in botting, and I'm able to read source code in a couple of languages. I can judge consensus in permissions discussions. I'd like to mop a bit more. I've been an admin for awhile and I've gotten a bit of salt under my belt. Thank you for your consideration. Jon@talk:~$ 06:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfB of NonvocalScream
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.
There are 19 administrators, and 5 bureaucrats (26%).

Crat note[change source]

At this point, NonvocalScream has 11 support votes including three crat supports. Per the new rules, he would be considered passed as long as there are no good objections. There is 1 oppose vote, which may have been made in good faith, but was made by a user who is now indef blocked. There are also 6 comments which all have, what I consider, valid reasons why this RfB should go through the long process. Prominently, there is no urgent need for a new crat. Unlike RfCU or RfOS, there are no minimum number of votes, and right now NVS has 100% support. I'd like to let this pan out a little longer and see if any of the objections below can be resolved. I have no objection to this closing early (as successful) if there are no further objections, and I will re-evaluate this in 1 day. For now, I'm not going to close this yet. EhJJTALK 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Valid call, I'd suggest we let EhJJ deal with this RFB. fr33kman 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this a second look, it appears NVS has even more support and no further discussion otherwise. NVS has three crat supports, as well as eleven other users and admins supporting. The oppose opinions sum to the following:

  • We don't need more crats
    • There have been many discussions on whether need should influence whether a user passes an RfX. Consensus in the past has been that it should not be an issue, and all users below felt it was not a sufficient reason to oppose.
  • NVS has only been back one month
    • The definition of an active admin is 150 admin actions in the past six months. NVS has made over 200 admins actions in the past one month, and has nearly 1000 admin actions in the past 6 months (admittedly, many of the latter are transwikis, but there are still many hundred blocks and deletes).
  • NVS is sometimes acts too fast and with too much emotion
    • Admittedly, this has also been my greatest concern. However, neither DJSasso nor I (nor any other user below) has considered this sufficiently worrisome to request deadminship or even to oppose this RfB. I feel NVS is mature enough to be able to be careful with the crat actions that he makes and to seek advice or to let things cool, as appropriate. I believe he understands that, as DJSasso said, rightly or wrongly [crats] do get looked up to be a shining example of editorship here.

In considering all of the above, and the spirit of the new early-close requirements (which are designed to limit long debates, demystify the crat flag, and let us all focus on building the 'pedia), I consider this a successful RfB. EhJJTALK 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Support Has more then enough trust for me to feel ok giveing him a couple extra buttons. whynot James (T C) 06:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Crat endorse: Per the new rules, only two crats need to endorse and the candidate gets the tools; unless "valid" objections are raised. fr33kman 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Has my trust. Lauryn (u • t • c) 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Crat endorse: If Scream really wants to do this job...and as it isn't a big deal. Barras talk 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support User wouldn't misuse the tools. Classical Esther♣ 11:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Nonvocal Scream is trustworthy, kind, and has good delicacy. He would certainly be very helpful as a bureaucrat. Best, ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support no concerns here. Airplaneman talk 17:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. +1 --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Technical support as I believe every admin should be a 'crat. Hopefully the new rules come into play soon, as there has been no valid objection Soup Dish (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A good, helpful user. Why not? I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Although I'm not too active here, this user seems to be very trustworthy and deserving of these extra tools. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Reviewing the contribs and admin actions, I have no concerns. I think that a crat NonvocalScream would be a net gain to the project. -Avicennasis @ 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support': I trust this user. Kansan (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Strongly oppose - I see you flip-flopping on blocks all the time, I see you ignoring some policies cause "it would have been the outcome anyway" and I've seen you restore stuff just cause you were too impatient to wait for it to load while deleted just to re-delete it. I've also seen you issue 30 minute blocks only to lift it 8 minutes later cause "you wanted the user to look at their userpage". I've also seen you accidentally block Lauryn Ashby (talk · contribs). So no. Not now.--  † CR90  07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure this obviously vindictive oppose will be given due weight. Lauryn (u • t • c) 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eight minute block was reversed because it was no longer preventative, the user was "now discussing".
  • I flipped one block due to that even since I had the other administrators approval, 1) did not look good and 2) I had no objection to indef
  • I see Lauryn is not upset, and I've apologised for that block and placed a proper note in her block log.
  • I gathered that was not anything offensive since a long term contributor created it. I was having problems with the pre delete render, so I did a quick restore to take a look. I can do that?
  • The story you contributed to this project was off scope, original research, unable to be verified, and a violation of userspace policy. Is this oppose in relation to the the discussion of your deleted story which closed as will remain deleted? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 07:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, ignoring the case of my story (which in the end I agree with the deletion of for the record), while you have addressed my other concerns with your side of the story, it still concerns me. So I cannot pull myself to change my vote, I'm truly sorry, Scream. maybe another time. I would honestly like to see you be a little more careful with the tools you have first. Have a nice day.--  † CR90  07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what's the meaning of this image upload on our local server? we don't support any image uploads. It just seems to be someone who is already admin and someone running for 'crat would know this policy.--  † CR90  00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are fishing, CR90. I see no issues raised here that relate to the role of a crat (which is mostly button pushing), just issues that seem to show that you have a personal grudge against this candidate. True colors seem to be shining through, once again. :( You've stated that you'd like to see NVS be more careful with his tools; well, the same can be said for all of us, including you! fr33kman 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I uploaded short term to illustrate a bug in our local mediawiki installation when we had those Sitewide and Gadget javascript bugs we had to settle out. I forgot to remove it. This is the discussion related. I know the spirit of the policy is to prevent non-free images in out image space and article space. I knew that it would be out of scope for commons but it needed to be done to improve our project since we had the bugs. It was never intended to be used in any article, and I uploaded on a free license. I'll delete it now. Jon@talk:~$ 01:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you deleted it, but you are still an admin that violated the image policy, even if it was just for short term and wasn't intended for article space. That worries me. And it's not the first time you uploaded a image to the local servers while admin. this image was originally uploaded by you on to the local servers as well. That was the day before the one you just deleted. The policy says all images not just ones intended for article space. Many ahve uploaded images to commons solely for solving bugs on here. Though I see you've used WP:IAR as your defense, so with that said we shall move on.--  † CR90  02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

  • Comment I am not going to oppose/support at the moment, but I am not sure that Nonvocalscream is ready for such a position. He has in the past (and I am sure he would agree) acted too fast and with too much emotional bias in situations. While there are not really any more heated situations for a crat than there are for an admin, you have to remember that 'crats rightly or wrongly do get looked up to be a shining example of editorship here. You only just returned and in your previous stint here were involved in many bleak situations. So basically I ask you this, do you really think you need the tools. Do you have a clear task, I see that you want to work at bots, but there is no reason why you have to be a crat for that. You can still post your comments, sure you can't actually give the flag but at wp:bot the actual giving of the flag in the end is realy just paperwork. I ask you these things because I know you like clear tasks from other people for flags so I want to ask you the same. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I completely understand. To assuage your concerns, if I ask for the tools, I do intend to use them. Most especially in the ways above, that I've stated in my statement. They will not sit idle. Also, I do understand that I've gotten heated with BG for example, this is corrected. Note that when I blocked Andrew indef, I did post on AN, and stated many times that I would not stand in the way of an unblock discussion. This is all professional. I hope that helps, Jon@talk:~$ 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't even been back for a month yet. Yottie =talk= 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm sure NVS would a be a great 'crat, I'm not so sure that one is needed. We have seven, and there aren't many 'crat things that aren't handled promptly. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't entirely agree with Griffin that 'crat things are handled on time; I have seen situations where a crat is needed, but none are online. However, I do not think NVS is the best person to be a crat, at this moment. I trust him and have a lot of respect for him, however, I think this is not the best time. He has only been back for a month and his activity has not been consistent, although, of course, RL is more important than wiki. However, I think that he needs some more time to show that he does not take rash decisions as he did in the past. I am sure he won't, but it's rather difficult to judge his actions if he became active only for a short time. I am basically neutral, but I'm sure I'll support at a later time. Sorry. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I don't think we need anymore crats here. By my calculations (a combination of active and semi-active) en.wiki has 18 crats and we already have 9. This is half of the manpower of en, while we operate at an even lower fraction in the way of requests. Bare in mind this has nothing to do with NVS....Synergy 14:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support if he had not just recently returned. I'm not going to vote at all.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/NonvocalScream&oldid=8895507"