Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)

• Prior request

End date: 13 June 2009, 19:00 (UTC)

During my last RFA, it was recommended that I wait a couple of months. I've let some time pass. I won't copy and paste my last statement, but I'll link it here. It still applies. I can use the tools to help the project.

Here are some of the things I've done that may help demonstrate that I know how to use the tools:

• VIP [1]
• Vandalism cleaning [2] [3] Note: Looks like a test edit as opposed to vandalism. [4] [5] Note: Gray as well, AGF [6].

I am aware of the deletion, protection, and blocking policy. I will follow them. If I disagree, I will discuss changes to the policy rather than go against.

Activity

A little note about my other activities and personal life. I currently volunteer with debugging open source linux software, Tor, and in the context of WMF, the Wikimedia blog, the Open Ticket Response System, and I edit other projects.

I have a demanding Job and a wife and child. I edit when I can.

I know that adminship is no trophy and I hope my low level of activity can be overlooked in light of these facts.

Trust

I hope that I have proved historically some trust on this project. If you have any questions about my interpretation of policy, or how to use the tools, please ask, I'll do my best to answer.

Big deal?

Is it a big deal? In someways yes, and in other ways no. I can not look past the idea that site administrators are held to a higher standard. For a sysop to protect a page inappropriately, block an editor incorrectly, or talk down to an editor... the consequence of that, is possibly great. That is to say, that editor could leave the project... taking valuable volunteer hours with him or her.

Additionally, sysop or not, we are all editors.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Closed as promoted (12/5). Chenzw  Talk  09:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. People have real lives, and can't always be editing. I trust him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support – Exactly per Julian. 50+ edits lately is not a reason to oppose, he is trusted. American Eagle (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - why oppose regretfully? Adminship is no big deal, Screamy is trusted :). Good luck :) Goblin 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. There are too many non fiable sysops... why not give even a try at this trusted user ? ONaNcle (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I believe that Scream would make a fine admin. We should look at candidates at a personal level, not at their activity. He says he has a job, a wife and a child, and I respect that. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Inactivity is no reason to deny adminship since it is not always possible for everyone to be very active. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 07:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I don't see why he couldn't become one, trusted, and actually has more edits than some other sysops. If others can have it, he can. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - great candidate. As per above, edit counts shouldn't be the reason to oppose, it's the trust in the user that is the main point. иιƒкч? 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe that is what people are saying when they say not enough edits....its not enough edits to build trust. -Djsasso (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support - my view on this is that Scream is a well-respected editor in cross-wiki activity. Active on meta: active on en: and semi-active here. To me, sysop is about trust in the user to not abuse the tools. It is not a matter of no need or inactivity on a smaller wiki such as ours. I trust NonvocalScream to not abuse the tools. To put it succinctly, I don't care about the number of edits Scream has, or has not, Scream has my trust. fr33kman ^talk 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I trust he won't wreck the wiki just because he's not that active. -- Mentifisto 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. He's knowledgeable enough that his activity level is not that important. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Trust/clue levels work for me. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - You have only 54 edits since March. Your edits doesn't show why you need the tools. Barras (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Regrettful oppose, while I have no doubts that you're a good editor, and I fully appreciate your reasons for lack of activity, I just don't think you are active enough for the tools at the moment - it's probably quite unlikely there won't be other admins about who are more active. Sorry, Goblin 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What exactly does the last portion of your statement mean: "it's probably quite unlikely there won't be other admins about who are more active". Either way (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What I mean is that with 30 admins or so already, it's unlikely that a self-admitted "inactive" admin is going to have much need for the tools, as there are other admins who are more than likely going to be about to deal with vandalism - indeed, from next week onwards i'm going to (literally) be online 24/7 (no more exams ^_^). And Either way, i'm getting pretty fed up on you commenting everything I do. Please, leave me alone, I do see it as wiki-stalking. Goblin 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was asking for clarification. Geez. I was reading the statement wrong and wanted to be sure what the intention was. Either way (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not a "we have too many admins" oppose if that's what you were thinking... Goblin 18:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Personally, I don't think you need the sysop rights here. Looking at your edits, I see a very low activity without any evidence of vandal fighting or related matters in the last few months. Sorry. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. You waited a couple of months, but have barely made any edits at all in that time. Please become more active before requesting again. Majorly talk 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per recent inactivity. Feel free to re-request once you become more active. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Additionally, while adminship is no big deal, there is a basic activity expectation. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose What has changed since the last Rfa? There has been pretty much no editing since then so all the opposes in that Rfa are still valid. -Djsasso (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How active do you want me to be? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no special number, but 54 edits in about 3 months is not enough. Barras (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, about what number of edits would you'all like to see? Where is the threshold located, about around? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just show us how active you can be. This is not about number of edits. -- Mercy (☎✍) 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it number of articles contributed then? I mean, can we quantify activity so that I know what the standard is? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Activity" isn't especially quantifiable, especially since it can vary from person to person. I think it odd that there were objects about this on your last RfA too, and yet it doesn't seem like you did much to address it (you've had 179 edits since since February[7]). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I do my best. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And really, that's fantastic. Personally, I'd like to see a candidate with a bit more activity than you currently have, which is the reason I'm not supporting at this time; however, I don't consider it such an issue that I'm going to oppose (if there were an actual Neutral section, I would have !voted there). If you can find some more time for this project in the future, I'm sure you'd have my support in a few months. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I'll try. I enjoy this and I have to admit, that I'm easily distracted. I've changed my OS from Windows to Linux... and I'm so fascinated by it, that I'm actually debugging it. O.O Home life does not really permit me to really have many projects, so this may be more of a "too many pots on the stove" type thing. I'll refocus my commitment here. Not for the RFA, but for the pleasure of creating/improving this encyclopedia. Thank you for your kind words. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (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.