Wikipedia:Requests for oversightership/NonvocalScream
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request is closed Unsuccessful and withdrawn. There are not enough editors on simple to overcome 4 opposes easily for the parameters of this vote. It is withdrawn early. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have some really nasty stuff coming up, and frequent suppressions. I'll go ahead and start this. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NonvocalScream change
NonvocalScream (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Statement change
Candidate Statement: I would like to volunteer with Simple Wikipedia in this way. I believe that I am trustworthy enough to not reveal any nonpublic information, as evidenced by my membership with the foundation otrs. I am also a member of the administrators group here on Simple Wikipedia, thus evidenced my local trust here. I am above the age of 18, and am listed on the foundation identity noticeboard. I understand the oversight policy and will not act outside that policy. I am available mostly for the answering of oversight requests, so I am active in that regard. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions change
Q: What experience do you have in identification-restricted roles? How would you decide whether something should be oversighted, as supposed to deleted? —MC8 (b · t) 17:55, Sunday July 26 2009 (UTC)
- A:I currently approve comments for the Wikimedia Blog as an identification restricted role. IP addresses of posters are logged there, so these can not be disclosed. Also, information can be oversighted when:
- Non public personal info has been posted, where the subject did not make that info available;
- Potential libel, where the WMF attorney requested there removal, or when the subject asks, and the case is clear... and there is no editorial reason to keep;
- When the WMF attorney asks us to remove copyright violations.
- The rest can be deleted in accordance with local policy and practice.
- Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q In light of your recent declaration of a wikibreak, do you still intend to pursue this role? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Work has me for about 48 hours... Hopefully shorter. This won't be a long break, but I won't be available for that time. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks for the explanation. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate's acceptance:
Support change
- Happy to be first. I trust Scream to use this tool properly. Majorly talk 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- –Juliancolton | Talk 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Although the oppose section's concern is valid, I still believe Scream will do a fine job with the tool. American Eagle (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hmwithτ 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - yes ther are some issues, but I think he can be trusted, even if I disagree often with him. Barras || talk 20:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change
- I'm very sorry, but I can not support you in this election. I don't fully trust your judgment. I have communicated to you both onwiki and privately that I do consider you to be overly aggressive at times. I think you are a good editor and a competent admin, but I can not, at this time, support your election to another position of trust and responsibility. Your RFD of Steve McLarin is a recent case in point. Whilst I fully understand your reasons for nominating that article for deletion, I also believe that it was a rash decision and one that was totally unneeded since you had actually dealt with the negative BLP issues by removing them. My concern is what would you have done if you had been an oversighter? Removed it from all our view? Also, these two RFDs are problematic Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Darkthrone & Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Love Hina. You started them and then withdrew them after, presumably, thinking better of them. Oversighter is all about deleting information from the wiki, and in my opinion, you have proved to have inadequate judgment. For these reasons I must oppose. fr33kman talk 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you have not misunderstood things. There are at least two oversighters on any wiki, for accountability and cross checking. So had I oversighted articles, I would be noticed. I also RFD'ed those articles because they did not meet our quick deletion criteria. I was following policy. I hope you have faith that I would follow the oversight policy as well. It is very, very clear on what can and can not be hidden. Please reconsider in light of what I've just posted. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fr33kman, having dealt with a particularly nasty spurt of vandalism this evening which required two instances of oversight, it is very much in our best interests to be getting local oversighters. I have known NVS longer than you - I have disagreed with many of his actions, but I'll tell you one thing - he is able to follow policies and is fully aware of how to use this tool. I doubt he would have oversighted the article - are you trying to suggest that any mistaken RFD means that the person actually wanted to oversight it? Bear in mind, NVS didn't even delete the article. So I'm uncertain what brings you to the conclusion that he would have oversighted it. Believe me, there's little leeway with oversight, and it has little, if any bearing on ordinary deletion. And the most important point: it's reversable. So even if he did mess up, which is extraordinarily unlikely, his mistake would be reversed. Majorly talk 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I promise that I'll sleep on it, and let the community know tomorrow. I will say two things in the mean time; 1) my oppose is not just about the RFD's, it's about more problems with judgment that just those, & 2) just because a thing can be reversed does not mean that there is no foul. fr33kman talk 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fr33kman, having dealt with a particularly nasty spurt of vandalism this evening which required two instances of oversight, it is very much in our best interests to be getting local oversighters. I have known NVS longer than you - I have disagreed with many of his actions, but I'll tell you one thing - he is able to follow policies and is fully aware of how to use this tool. I doubt he would have oversighted the article - are you trying to suggest that any mistaken RFD means that the person actually wanted to oversight it? Bear in mind, NVS didn't even delete the article. So I'm uncertain what brings you to the conclusion that he would have oversighted it. Believe me, there's little leeway with oversight, and it has little, if any bearing on ordinary deletion. And the most important point: it's reversable. So even if he did mess up, which is extraordinarily unlikely, his mistake would be reversed. Majorly talk 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Offtopic, but I noticed that NVS did not delete this page to remove his IP (and I know he noticed). An improvement. Thanks for listening to my concerns (and Fr33kman's). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you have not misunderstood things. There are at least two oversighters on any wiki, for accountability and cross checking. So had I oversighted articles, I would be noticed. I also RFD'ed those articles because they did not meet our quick deletion criteria. I was following policy. I hope you have faith that I would follow the oversight policy as well. It is very, very clear on what can and can not be hidden. Please reconsider in light of what I've just posted. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose, might change. Pmlineditor Talk 10:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything I can clarify? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Fr33kman's points give me concern. Shappy talk 11:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope I have addressed them above... however, if there is any other questions or concerns I might be able to answer, please ask. I will do my best. I'm watching the page so I should be able to address concerns quickly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NW (Talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give a reason, if only out of respect? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could indeed, though I assumed this was a straight vote. I have observed your judgment in sending diffs to stewards for oversighting while in the IRC channel #wikimedia-stewards; at least once within the past few days, but also possibly more times in the past (I don't remember clearly enough, and would have to check my private logs), I have seen stewards decline your request for a diff to be oversighted. If you had been an oversighter, you simply would have gotten rid of the diff yourself. NW (Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asking for username suppression, not oversight. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could indeed, though I assumed this was a straight vote. I have observed your judgment in sending diffs to stewards for oversighting while in the IRC channel #wikimedia-stewards; at least once within the past few days, but also possibly more times in the past (I don't remember clearly enough, and would have to check my private logs), I have seen stewards decline your request for a diff to be oversighted. If you had been an oversighter, you simply would have gotten rid of the diff yourself. NW (Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give a reason, if only out of respect? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments change
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.