Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream 2

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

NonvocalScream

edit

FINAL (10/28/2); Withdrawn by candidate.[1] - Icewedge (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs) - I've come to realize that I may still have something to offer to the community if they will allow me to serve them in this capacity once again. I have learned some things from my recall. I have learned that a good administrator is mainly just an editor that does the tasks of a janitor. Occasionally mediating a dispute. Realizing that administrators are looked up to at times by our new users, that administrators have a higher behavioral standard. I also realize that administrators should not gravitate towards drama. At least, I realize that I don't have to gravitate towards those discussion that becomes heated. There is plenty of other work to be done elsewhere.

I realize that in the past I did not honor my request for recall and caused a nuclear type explosion where there could have been a simple discussion. That I should have been honest in the past. I ask the community to forgive me and allow me the opportunity to serve as an administrator again. I understand the basics, and I've had experience in the past. I also would like the community to know that I have addressed the events that caused my recall. That is to say that I will never close a discussion where they might be a conflict of interest.

Additionally, that I do believe in accountability to the community. I have adopted an Lar's scheme at User:NonvocalScream/recall and I won't deviate.

There is not much time past between this RFA and the past RFA. The last one, I was vanished and did not disclose my history. I've since done so, I will not leave the project again.

I do some OTRS work, and I also help with the blog system (moderation, posting) at the blog. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

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. I also spearheaded the IP blocking exemptions policy.
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.
Question from User:TaborL
4. Why do you feel so many of your RFA's have failed? Do you plan to continue to do RFA until you evtenually succeed?
A. Mostly inexperience and past drama. I don't plan to RFA until I succeed. Should this one fail, I'll probably be less apt to request. That is to say, the community changes, but they don't change that quick. This is not a RFA series of attrition.

Questions from Rlevse

edit

Q: What have you done to address the concerns in your last RFA?

A:The basic concern in my last RFA was my lack of history and my apparent inexperience. I have associated NonvocalScream with my past, so that editors can see my total history. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Support- Has the requisite level of trust. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Well known, active wikipedian. What more could we want? The user has learnt from past experiences. Good luck. = ) --Cameron* 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I opposed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mercury, but that was over half a year ago now, and people learn and change. NonvocalScream has the experience, and I think re-mopping will be a good thing. Just be careful. Acalamari 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, yes, I do intend to be very careful. I've come to realize that my actions (if controversial) run the risk of becoming a timesink. I want to avoid that, that is to say, I don't want to unnecessarily waste the time of other editors. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per this non-admin, no consensus AfD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support I was a vocal and strident voice for recall before. Mostly because this candidate was failing to listen and learn from community input in their actions. I am convinced that this is no longer the case. Mercury was never an abusive admin and they deserve the trust of the community again. well worth returning to wiki one last time to support. Spartaz Humbug! 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support I've seen Nonvocal around (in quite a few places which is nice), and his contributions look good. My only concern would be if any of the previous opposes on his previous RfAs still apply. If that reason was not existent, I would provide all the support I can give. Wonderful user. Good luck. Leonard(Bloom) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, for now anyway. A look through the various recall things and some previous RfAs leads me to believe you could make good use of the tools and have learned lessons from past mistakes. But there's a real confusing pile of stuff to review here - it's appreciably a more complex situation than the average RfA. I'll have a further look tomorrow at your contributions and see if the oppose votes have brought up any concerns. ~ mazca t | c 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NVS means well, I am convinced of that. Have there been issues? Yes, there have but I'm convinced that NVS has learned from them, and further, has learned the value of seeking guidance and counsel first before acting hastily. I normally give less credence to a candidate's stance on recall nowadays, since well over 10% of admins are now in it... it's an idea that has proven its mettle, but given how the first recall of NVS unfolded, the fact that NVS has agreed this time that he will be recallable, and will have firm criteria and process, gives me confidence that if there is an issue sufficiently serious, there is a way for the community to deal with it. So I'm hopeful, and I'm pleased to assume good faith and assume things will go well and offer my Support ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per comments at [2]; shows good insight.--KojiDude (C) 00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though, as he admits under Oppose 14, he no longer agrees with what he comment within that diff? George The Dragon (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... didn't see that. Thanks for pointing that out! Guess I'm on the fence again, then.--KojiDude (C) 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And to clarify... that I think the community has grown to weigh these comments appropriately. Once Kmweber adds some meat to his argument, it might hold weight. At this time, his comments are not harming anything. They become... a fixture. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - I think Mercury made some pretty poor decisions, and I think NvS set off on the wrong foot rather... but my feeling is that he's done the hard yards, been lightly roasted for it on occasion, and still plugs away trying to help. He, like us all, is going to make tons of mistakes in the future too, and because I truly feel that adminship should represent less of a big deal, I offer this genuine, and moral, support. Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. At least moral support, i.e. heart in right place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose rejection of recall after being open to recall created drama and was an overall negative to the project. Also, when the user went through their latest rename, they initially refused to be open about their past - which is not necessarily a bad thing - until they bowed down to pressure coming from a certain other site. Listening to those on other sites would not be a very clever thing for an admin to do. George The Dragon (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not bow to Wikipedia Review. I bowed to my conscience. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the ridiculous meme is propagated that "It's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil to do anything that in any way resembles what's been talked about on the BigBADSITE! If they say that 2+2=4, you'd better say that it's 5 just to differ from those horrible trolls and harassers!" *Dan T.* (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Dan, I do agree with you - and have done several times over on WR. But it was the easiest reason for oppose I could give without risking the wrath of the WP:CIVIL patrol! George The Dragon (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The I don't understand your oppose. I do want to learn from it, so perhaps you could help me out a little? What do you mean? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, we are in a fortunate position here. We do not have to predict what the candidate would be like as an admin as we already know. Power-hungry, inconsistent, immature (namely failing in their arbcom bid, vanishing then returning, username changes, right to vanish then not, failing to answer recall). In fact, I doubt this candidate will ever do enough to create a consensus of users who believe he should be allowed within a couple of planets, let alone just Mercury, of the tools ever again after backing down on the recall. Kurt is right, those who seek power are the last ones to give it to. And they are the ones who are most pained if they ever lose power. Admins serve the community - this candidate only serves the community drama. And that a candidate as liable to bouncing off the wall as this one "helps" with OTRS is worrying to the extreme. NVS, you ask how you can learn? Well, learn that you are unlikely to ever receive the mop again and get used to it rather than pine over the position of "power" you once, albeit fleetingly and after numerous failed attempts, enjoyed George The Dragon (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear a good deal of references to adminship as being in a position of power. So bear with me while I play this one out. What sort of power will I wield? The power to tell users what to do? No. The power to delete an article, protect an article, or block a user, so that it suits me? Not really. Administrating this project is not a position of power. There are many systems in place to prevent an admin from abusing the tools, and when they do, they get called on it. There power you speak of does not exist. So what do I seek? Not power. Just the ability to assist the project. You arguments holds the weight of frankly, a feather. There is simply, no power in being an admin. Especially with processes such as ANI, deletion review, arbcom, and my recall process. I'm sure that you will argue that I can weasel out of my recall if I wanted to. I'll fix that: I preauthorize any steward to desysop me as if I made the request on RFP @ meta should I deviate from recall. So I ask you, does adminship make you a king, a demi-god, or a authoritarian? I don't think it does. The only thing I'm asking from the community is the technical set of tools to make me more efficient. That is about all. I respectfully present to you, that there is no power to crave. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, respectfully. Ever-shifting usernames, several sudden dramatic departures from the project, and a half-dozen unsuccessful RFAs do not, to my mind, instill any confidence that you will be a consistent and reliable admin. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely not, per self-nom, [3], and wholly unacceptable remarks at [[4]] and [5] (under old account Mercury), plus a ton of previous RFAs make it clear to me that he desires nothing more than power. And that's just what I personally know of. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Showed what I feel to be poor judgment as an admin and then went for RFA as a different account without giving away your past. I don't feel you would be a good admin. Sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Kurt and George make some good claims. tabor-drop me a line 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - you were an administrator less than a year ago, and you created a lot of problems. I'm not convinced that you've changed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NonvocalScream/recall#cite_note-3 should be reworded to "if you can see a decent recall process anywhere here, please let me know", because all I see is a heck of a lot of wikilawyering. —Giggy 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm more comfortable with a simple version. I've remade the criteria here. There is a note regarding the two week grace period however. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks for improving it. Indenteded. I have no further stance on this RfA. Good luck. —Giggy 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose I have to agree with Kurt on this one. Calling Kurt a troll for not following AGF is, to say the least, hypocritical.It's to soon after recall to be self-nomming, indeed I am generally automatically opposed to self-noms after recall. The best judge of whether you've improved enough is someone else. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose per EtR and Kurt Weber. Your last request was two months ago; did you not consider maybe waiting? You said yourself that wikipedia changes, but not that fast; I can't see how you're expecting a different result in this nom than the previous one. Ironholds 22:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because in the last one, the community did not know the history. That fact has changed. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose I felt like I was being given the runaround on the last RFA with you hiding your past as Mercury while a few select admins seemed to know who you were. I do not trust you or any drama monger with the tools whatsoever. SashaNein (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per blatant misuse of the admin tools in closing your own AfD nom. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you are referring to, can you cite the example? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [6]. The AfD was live for just over an hour and received two other comments. The AfD should not have been closed that early, nor should you have been the one that closed it. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it meet A7 at the time. I had no clue it was DRV'ed - or at least I don't remember commenting there. I think I would have restored it - had it restored if someone asked. That certainly won't happen again. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. An admin's net effect should increase project stability rather than decrease. it. What I am tempted to call head-of-pin-dancing (cf. this this) is not encouraging. — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not comfortable because I simplified my criteria into a much more simple and easy to follow format? Even I had problems following my recall criteria. I'm not sure what gives? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely recommend against arguing against (5 of 14 so far) oppose views. I view your decision to post on my user talk page (diff) as ill-considered. — Athaenara ✉ 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My post to your talk page was well considered. I did it after I considered your comment. I did it because I remain unclear. Surely asking for clarification is not forbidden, or in bad taste. If I were begging you to sway your vote, then of course it would be different. I hope I did not bother you by posting to your talk page, that was not the intent. Incidentally, I've also posted to Giggy's to let him know I had addressed his concern, and I posted to Nishkid64's to let him know that I was requesting the example (because I was stumped). Since you included a diff of your talk page edit, here is Nishkid64 and Giggy . There was nothing wrong with that. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose. I cannot trust that the tools will be used wisely. --JayHenry (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose Was away for much of the earlier drama, but just on the evidence seen so far, the candidate apparently believes that a man should be blocked for having a strong opinion and voicing it repeatedly. Kind of scary, really. Mr. IP (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel like Kurt is disrupting the project anymore. I felt that way in the past, but as you can probably see on meta, I feel rather strongly the opposite is true. We probably ought not to squelch minority opinions. To do so would be chilling. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm toning down my oppose on the grounds that you seem to have come around on that point, and also that I'm not as familiar with your history as some. A "strong" oppose is unfair in this situation. Still, the precedent itself disturbs me greatly. Mr. IP (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Absolutely not. Assumes bad faith frequently, and has bad judgement in several areas. Al Tally talk 00:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, per George. I usually don't oppose quickly but this RfA doesn't make me feel good at all, sorry. I'd suggest to try again in 6 months or so. Win some more trust back, first.  Channel ®   00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. oppose he could have waited a while longer, I also haven't seen him around much, so he hasn't done anything to change the reputation he earned under his previous username for mercurial behaviour.:) Sticky Parkin 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Basically never. Naerii 00:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per previous RfA; two months is way too soon to establish trust after such a WP:SNOW. Sorry, it takes longer than that, and that's ignoring the history. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could not ignore the history? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I am sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong OpposeA liability to the project. He is power-hungry and paranoid, which caused stress and drama among the community. Wikipedia will be better off without him. His dishonesty with his identity during the last RfA is borderline sockpuppetry.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I was extremely concerned by his antics at Wikipedia Review before admitting he was Mercury. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My behavior offsite translates to the English Wikipedia how? Did I publish non public data? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You skirted the edges of truth for a number of days in denying you were Mercury. That's inappropriate behaviour for any person, regardless of where it happens; you've already been desysopped once (as much as you tried to deny it), so people need to know they can trust you before they'll support you. You frequently, in that thread, referred to Mercury in the third person along with other users, and then even said "I'm not all these people that I've been accused of being". The fact that there's an "all" there doesn't change the fact that you deliberately misled the community about your previous identity. Comments such as "Try not to call me something I'm not" (when someone referred to you as Mercury), followed by a request to have the entire thread removed from the site. And before you say "It wasn't a lie!" (as you did on Wikipedia Review), please note that I don't care if it was a lie or simply a deliberate misrepresentation which skirts a lie. Interestingly, later in that thread you say "I'm a fan of transparency", despite wanting to have the thread removed entirely. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You set a new precedent. So I hope everyone will remember, when you are harassed and outed offsite, keep your actions careful, for those who subscribe to Wikipedia Review will come and oppose you as Daniel just did. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not "outed", because i) it wasn't your real life identity and ii) there was clear association between the accounts, and it was your decision to deny it. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel, suppose I could not bother you to get some links together for your claims. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know as well as I do why I won't do that. Notably absent in your two replies to my above post is an actual rebuttal to the arguments raised in it. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is one: Prove your assertion. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I can't link to Wikipedia Review, but I sure as can give directions: go to the Wikipedia Review article and follow the URL in the infobox. When you get there, type in "NonvocalScream show" into the search bar in the top right hand corner. The first result is the thread in question. Then read all of the comments made by the candidate; he uses the nickname "NVS" at Wikipedia Review. Unless, are you going to deny that you are NVS@wikipediareview? Daniel (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you support Wikipedia Review, however, I don't think it translates here, unless I've violated site policy/guidelines or released some non public data somewhere. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Wikipedia Review? Now that needs a link. Plus, your belief that deliberate misrepresentations on another website are irrelevant, is the opposite to my belief that they are relevant, and I bring it to the attention of all that the candidate has failed to reply to the substance of the oppose, but rather has questioned its relevance only. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    link. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? How does that show I support Wikipedia Review? Is merely mentioning that you deliberately misrepresented the truth regarding your former identity at Wikipedia Review an act of support for the website in question? Daniel (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I view the fact that you would so such a thing (oppose an RFA based one conduct at Wikipedia Review) as support for the site. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then your judgement has seriously gone downhill since you lost your administrator tools, which is to say it's well and truly below the bottom threshold of the judgement levels required to be an administrator. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact that you can not see how I was attempting to stay secret (clean slate provision of sockpuppetry policy) gives me pause into your judgment. Just what are you doing? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you declined to give up your OTRS access, gained as the user "Mercury", when you attempted to make a clean start, means your attempted application of that provision of the policy section in question is faulty in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) OTRS is a foundation activity for which trust is determined by OTRS admins. Not the English Wikipedia. OTRS agents do not have to disclose the fact that they are otrs volunteers or what queues they have access. You know that part. The fact that I retained otrs access does not a en wiki policy violation make. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A clean start means a clean start, not a "I'll pick which tasks I'll keep" routine. It is irrelevant what wiki this is associated with, because Wikimedia is a global project, and you have made edits in response to OTRS tickets on the English Wikipedia, even before you were forced to recant your deliberate misrepresentations at Wikipedia Review and admit you were Mercury (I found [7][8][9] on the first contribs page I checked). Daniel (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I don't doubt that NonvocalScream has good intentions regarding the project. However, the user's past actions as an RfA perennial, as an admin, as an editor, and as a former ArbCom candidate do not assure me of his suitability for adminship. Also, his seeming aversion to the concept of patience and propensity to create drama rather than mitigate it causes me, with the interests of Wikipedia in mind, to oppose this nomination. —Kurykh 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone who can't even try to disengage from an argument on their own RfA (only right above, for the love of God) only earns my strong oppose. —Kurykh 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was ok to discuss here. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I don't really see evidence of reform since the trouble took place. Wizardman 02:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose Answers to questions are short and the user seems a bit power hungry with the many rfas.--LAAFan 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. It has been a long time since I have opposed a request for adminship. But in this case I feel I must. The accusation that Daniel "supports Wikipedia Review" is outrageous, unsubstantiated and shows a complete lack of judgment. I cannot support an admin so ready to leap to ridiculous conclusions. WJBscribe (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per many reasons cited above, for me the recall that was closed early makes me wonder about judgment. The combative statements made during the height of the debate over Kurt's RFA votes were over the top also. Overall, I wouldn't trust him to act as a respectful and civil admin here. RxS (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per WJBscribe. Also, you seem prone to things like this, especially in (but not limited to) this RfA. It's almost as if whenever someone dislikes a statement you made, you retract it, like it never happened. That gives me the impression that you're weak, and that I wouldn't be able to trust you to stay true to your word as an admin.--KojiDude (C) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I don't like these sneaky name-changers. I thought Mercury retired.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral - I feel that NonvocalScream has improved somewhat, but not enough for a support. Soxred 93 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Some of the concerns raised above in the oppose section really worry me, but I would like to believe that the candidate has learned something from their experiences. However, I do not feel that I can fully go in either a support OR oppose direction, hence this neutral. --Winger84 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NonvocalScream_2&oldid=1090626070"