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.

---

Withdrawn by candidate. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)

End date: 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Jon. I'm an editor, I also have the mop that I use from time to time. I have a through understanding of IP and editor relationships. I am online more than ever for this wiki, and available for CU requests. I am also available to crosscheck other checkusers. I am already identified to the foundation and have no issues dealing with restricted data, as I already deal with the data. I have a deep understanding of the privacy policy and can demonstrate when to check, and when not to check. I will be an asset by assisting in the prevention of abuse and socking on this wiki. Thank you for your consideration.

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I trust him not to abuse the CU tool. Shappy ^talk 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have see you get into a lot of disputes, particularly recently to the point where (albeit in a bad faith manner) your adminship was requested to be removed. I'm not sure now is the best time, but maybe at a future date with some consistent good work and collaboration behind you. Also, assuming Fr33kman's RFCU passes, do we really need five checkusers on such a small wiki? Please note the second part of this oppose is not an oppose reason, just a question. Majorly talk 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. For the others, I will link the discussion where that editor requested my tools be removed. I'm not sure of any other disputes however. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting for now. Will think this over. Majorly talk 00:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regretful oppose per Majorly... --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T ♥s you! 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Majorly puts it well in that you get into disputes. See [1] for my reasoning. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That was a thoughtful discussion, and I was reminding you to edit maturely, because you had forgotten to and were editing immaturely. I'm allowed to discuss. Or did you come here to oppose me because I disagree with you. I think you did. I normally AGF, but you've left me none with comments like "Oh give me a break..." and "Fine, you want a decision from an uninvolved crat. Allow me"..."Discussion closed, please go write an encyclopedia". I guess I have to agree with you on all things in order to gain your support. I see that you are still currently discussing things... Yet, you won't permit me. Do you expect me to only write articles, or may I actively participate in the community as well? Learn what a dispute is, and what a discussion is. The two are not the same. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I have voted oppose partly because of your attitude over the past while, including at ST. Not in retaliation. I understand the difference between a dispute and a discussion. Anyway, what may help is not to rebut my opposition with some meaningless diffs taken out of context. I certainly won't now be changing my mind. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't expect to change your mind. I linked them for context. I know you came here out of retaliation. Look at your editing history, and that discussion you linked to. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What, the discussion I linked with you replying to go on a wikibreak and to stop acting like a child, or an immature person? Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that would be the one. The one where you took that and converted into opposition of my checkusership. Wherein you take into no good account my positions of trust around WMF, or my technical expertise. I gather I'm supposed to put on soft gloves, because you can't take frank discussion. Or that it is ok for you to make sharp remarks, and expect none in response. I don't normally debate my opposer, but this one that you did takes the cake. I would expect better out of a functionary such as yourself. I'm disappointed. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, well I am disappointed too. At least we can agree on that eh? Kennedy (talk • changes). 21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very impressed with his knowledge of the position, but I too agree with many of Majorly's points. I could go either way at the moment. Shappy ^talk 20:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.