- The following discussion 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.
- NonvocalScream (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
End date: 20th July 2009, 15:31
I am requesting the de-sysopping of NonvocalScream for his inappropriate block on me the other week. Per the Flood Flag policy, "Unacceptable uses include attempting to circumvent legitimate oversight of any controversial action, regardless of whether it is an administrator task or not." This statement says that if I /had/ used the flood flag whilst my edits were under scrutiny then it would have been unacceptable use. Furthermore, there is no policy saying that flooding is disruption, and indeed the meta page, and now our own, is only a guideline, not a policy, and suggests that admins use it, not that they must, further proving that a block was an inappropriate use of the administrator tools. Goblin 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
- Per my "nomination". Goblin 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
- Support to avoid WP:SNOW within 24hrs Promethean (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're supporting because you don't want this to close early? Exert 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is imo not a valid reason and should be ignored. Barras (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think its *your* opinion, but more or less the opinion of everyone (including myself) Promethean (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Based on one mistaken block? I don't think so. Show a pattern of abusive behaviour, and I might reconsider. Majorly talk 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- One mistake amongst many good decisions. I don't see justification right now. If it happens again then we have a discussion.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Only one mistake out of all his admin actions is not enough to warrant deadminship. Like Majorly says, I will reconsider if you can show long term, consistent abuse of the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- De-adminship is for a long pattern of abuse. NVS made one bad block, and he knows it was perhaps not the right move. As the above said, is there a pattern of this? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose You need to be able to prove he did it to circumvent legitimate oversight and that it was not an accident. Especially considering on a wiki this size blocking a regular editor with a flood flag would not do so. The block itself in my view was a legitimate one as you avoided discussion with 3 admins when asked to stop and discuss, that means you were disruptively editing and valid to block. While I would not have blocked based on the flooding alone, I would have blocked you for refusing to stop flooding while you discussed the situation. This is clearly a WP:POINT nomination in retaliation against NVS. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- One bad block out of all his actions, isn't enough for deadminship. There needs to be a pattern of abuse actions. Exert 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that NonvocalScream has acted unwisely a few times, including reverting BG7's revert of EhJJ's addition of level 3 headings to T:TDYK and in blocking BG7 for his, perceived, abuse of flooding RC when no policy requires an admin to use it, but merely states that they should. I have spoken on IRC and email to scream about these and feel that he has come to understand that some were unwise actions. He understands that it was more appropriate to discuss the reversion to T:TDYK rather than revert it. However, I do feel that the block whilst using the flood flag, while certainly wrong, was a genuine mistake; one he has filed a bug report to try and prevent in the future. I believe that scream has become a calmer more thoughtful admin as a result of all this. I don't support a desysoping unless much more evidence can be found of deliberate wrongdoing. fr33kman talk 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per above comments, NVS needs to be more careful in how he uses the tools, but I am not convinced that the problems rise to the level of a desysop. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- An excellent admin on the whole. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nonvocalscream being an admin is a net positive to the project. hmwithτ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry BG, but one mistake doesn't convince me he can't be an admin. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- What nonsense. Someone close this. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am making the request that people stop closing and reopening this RfDA. It was closed per WP:SNOW by Barras and has had multiple reverts since then. This is edit warring and is against policy. If any editor objects to a SNOW closure; it is a clear indication that it was not correct to close it that way. Multiple admins have now been involved in this closure/reopen/closure/... it would now be best to let a 'crat deal with it. fr33kman talk 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, Rfx's are a 'Crats domain, no admin should ever touch an Rfx unless its vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am at work at the moment, lunchbreak, and don't have much time right now. however, I want to state that I do understand this process is happening. I will not use the tools or take any administrative action until this is done. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to close this as it is rather one sided. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ BG7) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.