Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Silsor 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Silsor

Final (94/20/5) ended 18:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Silsor (talk • contribs) – After having voluntarily relinquished sysophood, Silsor has time and mental energy to spare again and would like the sysop bit back, but preferred that at least one other person think well enough to nominate rather than self-nominating. Thousands upon thousands of edits, here since late 2003, lots of good work, no earthly reason not to have the sysop bit - David Gerard 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to nominate, but David beat me. Endorse nomination. Will (E@) T 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
yeah ok silsor 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what we like to see! Enthusiasm! - David Gerard 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Can I vote here? If so, yeah. - David Gerard 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Huzzah! — Dan | talk 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Well, yes. Was a good admin, was a good user, should be a good admin again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. 2x Edit conflict, nom conflict support Will (E@) T 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. {{subst:support|per=above|reason=outstanding ebay user, quick communication and payment, a++++++}} er...Support. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. -- MarcoTolo 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Woop — FireFox (υ|τ) 18:26, 27 April 2006
  8. yeah, okay, i guess. --Interiot 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Extreme "Oh my God! Oh my God! *runs round in circles* The world is coming to an end!" support - he isn't one? What a travesty! </melodrama> (edit conflict) --Celestianpower háblame 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. More 2 × edit-conflict support. Seems to be a traffic jam on rushing to support. Good enough for Mindspillage, good enough for me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. 3 × edit-conflict support give him back the mop. Kimchi.sg | talk 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support /me hands Silsor a mop and bucket Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - sounds good. --Cyde Weys 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Like answers to questions. Interesting reason to desysop. Good reason to want it back. FloNight talk 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Give him back the mop Support, A very dedicated user to the project. Go for WP:100 (probably this time there will not be any edit conflict 2x already) --Andy123(talk) 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    At the current support-vote rate (~3 min/support vote) this will hit WP:100 only 5 hours after opening. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. I see absolutely no reason why not to. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, like duh--Shanel § 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, was good, will be good. If you don't feel like we need to finish this off for a week to swell your head, I think we can speedy this one. - Taxman Talk 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. -- Um, I never knew he quit. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, plain and simple. —Whouk (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. 3 fucking edit conflicts support.™ --Rory096(block) 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. I have to confess I have a concern about Silsor misusing the admin powers if Silsor gets them back. In Deskana's optional question Silsor says "often have to prod other people". That is a CLEAR misuse of {{PROD}} and Silsor will have to promise to stop doing it, we can't have editors getting deleted that way, process or not. But hey... Support anyway ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support JoshuaZ 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Of course. Rob Church (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Clearly he knows what he's getting into and, given that his successful earlier adminship, there is no reason for concern. --Bucketsofg 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Valiant. Haukur 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Moe ε 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. No-brainer.-gadfium 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Didn't know he ever gave it up. Snoutwood (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Ral315 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Obviously. DarthVader 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. He didn't abuse his powers the first time around. --TantalumTelluride 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Pile-on Support. Like, duh. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 00:42 UTC
  36. Support - I think it's strange that he requested de-adminship and now wants it back, but admin status is 'no big deal'. Richardcavell 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Couldn't keep away from the 'pedia, huh? The cobwebs have been cleaned from your old mop - it's still here... Grutness...wha? 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Obviously an asset.--MONGO 03:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Joe I 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Welcome back (we hope)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. utcursch | talk 04:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per above. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support per MONGO. —Khoikhoi 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support--Jusjih 07:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Super Autofellatio Support Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, sure no problem. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, trustworthy user. Alphax τεχ 16:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Tony Sidaway 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Good chap, welcome back.
  50. Support Sure! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support As if this really needed to be discussed. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Anytime for the fine once and future admin who is clearly not a petty power-hungry nob--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support I think if you give up your sysophood for valid reasons then you should get it back with RFA! Mike (T C) 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support, good with the mop. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support of course! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support for sure --Deville (Talk) 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support --Terence Ong 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. Unhesitating support. --Fire Star 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support, good user. feydey 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Juustuburger. Esteffect 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Great comeback. (^'-')^ Covington 22:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. I am not totally cool with his actions regarding the "RfD", but I am prepared to overlook this. He was not power-drunk last time, and he understands our policies. Rje 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support, I think he can have his adminship back. JIP | Talk 06:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support It's all good. Rx StrangeLove 06:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support: Time is dynamic and life is a flow. Sometimes, persons require a break, and when they come back, they perform better. --Bhadani 12:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - I can't believe I hadn't supported yet -- Tawker 23:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  68. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support, great admin. Rhobite 02:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support, of course. pschemp | talk 03:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support; I see no reason to hold the deadminship process silsor chose to use against him. The only issue for me is his ability to use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 04:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. --Irpen 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. I still do not fully understand why he asked to be de-sysoped in the first place. He was a fine admin before. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support and added to this. NoSeptember talk 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Like OMG Like totally DUH! Like support! *swishes blonde hair around*  ALKIVAR™ 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support, of course – ABCDe✉ 04:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. I see no reason to oppose on the basis of the request for de-adminship. He is unlikely to abuse admin tools and is on the right side of most issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Supportdaamn, rory don't need to say in order to be supportive--Bonafide.hustla 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. Ingoolemo talk 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. Experience and sanity. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support. Do I need a reason? -Will Beback 07:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support Experienced and the opposers haven't convinced me that he might misuse his powers. RicDod 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support, the opposition votes are utterly unconvincing. --Bjarki 19:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. Thought about this one a long time. The overriding factor: even if he uses the tools only once a month, he's roughly 0% likely to abuse them. Yes, there are backlogs, there are users who need admins to be there for them but, as I've read a few times, "adminship is no big deal." RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support. I see no reason to oppose over a "Request for Deadminship", or because he's not active all the time. That's really petty. He's proven himself as an admin and he won't abuse the tools. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support without question. He is relatively inactive at the moment because he is away from home. - Mark 02:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support, I suppose saying RfA cliché #1 would be a terribly unwitty joke. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, satisfies my criteria. Regarding the request for de-sysoping and other jokes I think some playing outside the mainspace is permissible. I am impressed that nobody questioned his previous actions as sysop. abakharev 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support, belated but enthusiastic! (I really ought to pay more attention to this page) -- sannse (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support, leaving me the sole retired admin... bwahahahahahaha! Hmm, Actually I was pretty darn jealous of silsor beating me to the punch on the deadminship thing. I still am too. If he wants the admin bit back, well, I think he's gone totally insane! Then again, he certainly won't blow up the wiki, so support anyway. Kim Bruning 18:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support Would make a fine admin. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support - plenty of believable testimony that this person was an effective admin in the past. Like others, I wish there'd been a more considered answer to the first question - it's almost disrespectful. But our role here is to identify people we trust with admin powers, and surely this is one. Metamagician3000 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support - adminship is no big deal, and neither is relinquishing it. Silsor has been an excellent and reliable admin. +sj + 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. His old "Request for Deadminship" remains pretty confusing to me; his reasoning was cryptic at the time. I fully support eschewing admin power, and I do think some folks take it much too seriously. If Silsor had made it clear that was his reason at the time (I think he's done so now below), I would have admired him. Since he denied any such motivations at the time, I was left scratching my head. Ultimately, I do think silsor should have adminship back, now that he's offered a clear explanation. In light of the time he wasted with RfDeA, though, I do think there should be symbolic opposition, and I guess I'll do the honors. Xoloz 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to full standard oppose, per Durin's analysis. Xoloz 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia is not a playground. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral changed to Oppose I am concerned as is Xoloz with the prior "request for de-adminship" made by silsor at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/silsor. That request generated very significant debate, to which one of silsor's responses was rather less than entirely civil [1], where he states that some who disagrees with him on his request for de-adminship are suffering a disease. He further went on a small revert war ([2] and [3]) when a number of users had raised objections to the entire process, which by his own statements seems to be a potential violation of WP:POINT ([4]). Later on, he stated his intention to discuss any insights gained from this effort ([5]), but to date he has made no comments on WT:RFA regarding these results. This concerns me. Doing a casual review of some of his recent edits, he seems ok though his contribution rate of ~2 edits per day over the last two months is a bit lower than I like to see in an admin. I'll review more later. At this time, I remain neutral. --Durin 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    After further review, I became more concerned about this editor. In particular, blanking User:Radak's userpage ostensibly because of attack content on the page, without rationale or apparently discussing it with the user [6]. This was undone less than an hour later. Failing some rationale and/or discussion, this sort of behavior can spark an edit war and cause stress to others. I'm also concerned about the use of a speedy deletion tag on an AfD debate [7]. Certainly you can add a comment to speedy delete the article, but speedy delete the AfD? Improper. Thankfully this was undone by the closer of the AfD. The article was deleted as speedy, but the point remains that the AfD should not be speedied. I am further concerned about a significant drop off in participation covering the last couple of months, and a near total absence over the last 30 days. Related to this, you voted in opposition to User:Master of Puppets' RfA stating that you felt his "contributions appear very fluffy and insubstantial to [you]". Certainly his contributions over the last two months have been far more significant than yours have been. Your contributions have been almost entirely reverts, spelling corrections, minor copyedits, and the like. By your own metric, it seems you would vote against yourself. Also, please tell me the beginning of this userpage of yours is a joke? My humor chip might be offline at the moment. Lastly, what assurances do we have that you won't attempt to abuse RfA again to demonstrate how "diseased" those of us at RfA are who feel it shouldn't be used for de-adminship purposes? --Durin 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    The line is a joke (apparently mixing Protocols of the Elders of Zion with Fermat's Last Theorem); it is a somewhat subtle joke, which perhaps the RfDeA was also. Subtle jokes can get folks into trouble. Xoloz 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    I hoped it was a joke, and rather thought it was, but it wasn't very clear. There are some people in this world filled with that kind of hate and certainly some of them are here on Wikipedia. Glad to know silsor does not appear to be one of them. --Durin 15:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    Radak's user page which I blanked said "Boycott Wikipedia until Jimbo stops being a censorczar deletionist dickhead... Go fuck yourself, Jimbo. You blow mules and swallow." I added a speedy tag to both the "hobosexuality" article and its AfD page; it should never have gone to AfD and the AfD should have been deleted immediately, like the article was. It's charming that you're concerned about the insubstantiality and patterns of my 8000+ edits. I just came out of a month of exams. My quotes page is humorous, as you can tell by looking at it. I don't think I abused RfA, but if you think so you're welcome to disagree. silsor 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose he doesn't really seem to understand or care that people objected to his use of process as personal amusement and attention-seeking. If he'd just asked to be desysopped normally, or understood now that people objected to his actions and not to "somebody not wanting more power", it wouldn't be an issue. --W.marsh 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Seems very inactive for a potential admin (again) at the moment. Perhaps adminship will spur slisor on, but I have similar concerns to the ones raised by Durin, browsing over Silsor's edits. Describing a valued, but departed editor as "batshit insane" is odious. --Knucmo2 22:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstood my comment; Plautus Satire was not one of the "valued" editors, he was a raving lunatic who is banned. silsor 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Mm. But you would still do well to maintain civility in the face of lunacy, as most administrators do. --Knucmo2 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    As I did in the page I just linked to. silsor 17:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    (Not in the face of lunacy): "As far as I'm concerned this topic is now closed and you've wasted enough of my time." , "Then it will be passed on to the people who make the changes. What do you think we did before we had bureaucrats? Use sticks?, However, the unexpected way some people have reacted to it shows that they really need to rethink the diseased way they look at RFA., Become answerable via email for your blocks or have a future RFC. To me your behaviour is unacceptable, Your opinion seems to be "lost in space", not based upon anything. "You're comparing it to the deletion policy which is about deleting articles", Please stop reverting my contributions for no reason at all. Femmina 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) - Silsor removing talk from his page, "Or are you just trolling again? Is this a big enough bite for you?", persistent addition of looney material, had just reverted to something older. "I went back a few hundred more revisions but I still can't figure out how that crap got in there.", edit summary: "removed pointless wibbling sentence", edit summary: "reverted unverifiable claim due to near-simultaneous crapping on Christianity by same contributor". --Knucmo2 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Deadminship proposal shows lack of committment. Is frequently uncivil. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The deadminship proposal to my mind showed a flippancy and self-importance I found really off-putting. Answer to question Q1 strikes me just the same way. In this case a self-nom would have been better: "I'd had it up to here etc., but I'm ready to help out again and you all know I can etc." The answer to the optional question almost overcomes this but even here there's a kind of pomposity that nags ("I also wanted to see how Wikipedians would react to somebody not wanting more power, which turned out to be a pretty bizarre concept to some.") Finally, having met a few lunatics on the Wiki myself, I have to ask what purpose is served posting 40K+ worth of e-mails. I have some e-mails from BigDaddy777 people might find amusing, but I think it's better to let the batshit float away. Marskell 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Even if I didn't already find his attitude to adminship and other users unappealing, question 1 would have convinced me to oppose.Grace Note 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose needs to tidy up loose-end questions arisng from above opposition 1st. Merecat 06:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I am sorry, I do not like to see an adminstrator who is not 100% committed. If any wikipedia user who wishes to become an admin is not 100% committed to our community, he or she must not be an adminstrator in the first place! They are supposed to be role models to our community who directly supervises Wikipedia. Sjsharksrs 08:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Too many valid concerns have been raised above for me to feel comfortable supporting this request. The answer given to Q1 also troubles me greatly. I expect candidates to explain what they propose to be doing if promoted to admin, and not to be told basically "check out my past history yourself to get the answer or don't bother voting". I always check out candidates contributions, as I'm sure every other voter does, but I still expect candidates to state their intentions. It is interesting to note that the candidate was asked 4 days ago to expand on "the same stuff as before". Quite frankly the original answer to Q1, and failure to respond to a request for clarification, display a disrespect for fellow editors that is entirely inappropriate for a potential admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose (changed from neutral). He seems blase about the whole thing. Q1 remains effectively unanswered. I'm basically in agreement with Cactus.man. --kingboyk 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I have given the user more than enough time (see Cactus man's vote above) to at least explain question #1 and to show some interest in being an admin but he has not answered yet. This, coupled with his low activity in this wikipedia leads me to oppose. Joelito (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Durin.—thames 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per his answers (and lack thereof) to the questions below, per the concerns raised about his request for de-adminship, per his general arrogance toward others, per his lack of respect for the adminship process (which to me suggests that he devalues process and consensus altogether--he only seeks it when he has to), per his innactivity over the last few months, and per the evidence of his incivility and poor editing style presented above. Then again, as he was already found to be an able admin who never abused his tools, I would certainly support this RfA (should it fail, which appears unlikely) if he were to withdraw and try again, this time in the respectful and mature fashion expected of sysops. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose: his answer to question #1 worries me, as does the whole de-admin thing. --Hetar 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Cactus.man's analysis here seems to be absolutely correct. Frankly the answer to Q1 is just plain rude. Leithp 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per several editors above. Jonathunder 15:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose I would have preferred a clearer answer to, question 1. Don't think this user is ready to pick up the mop and bucket again.Dlohcierekim 16:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Not sure why he wants admin back. He hasn't made a lot of contributions in the last few months and the most edits are on this page. What's the point of giving someone tools they are not going to use?--Tbeatty 01:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Neutral I would like to know more about the chores he needs to ask other sysops to do. If this s substantial, I would change to Support--Tbeatty 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Q1 answer is not "correct" IMHO :(. Besides that is obviously a good candidate - just try again in a couple weeks with a fresh take on things :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I can't bring myself to vote support because of this user's past request for de-adminship, and his non-chalant response to the nomination. Just seems like adminship doesn't mean anything to him. TDS email 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Same things as TDS. It would be a strong support but he doesn't even seem to want it. --Mets501talk 17:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    An important maxim on internet is "Never give power to those who seem to want it". Err... Have you supported people for admin who *did* seem to want it before? Ut oh... Who? Kim Bruning 18:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. While I think you're an overall great guy on Wikipedia, I'm a little concerned with your behavior, as evidenced by telling me "MYOB" in #wikipedia when I asked you to change your nick when it was 'SOLLOG'. SushiGeek 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. He seems blase about the whole thing. Too many supports from good users to oppose though. --kingboyk 11:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.
  4. Neutral. I don't really want to oppose, but his responses to the questions seem a bit disaffected. --Alan Au 08:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, I was going to vote in support but the reasons given by those voting in opposition are troubling. Thryduulf 13:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See User:Silsor's edit summary usage with Mathbot
  • Edit count (at 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
Username: Silsor
Total edits: 8492
Distinct pages edited: 3963
Average edits/page: 2.143
First edit: 08:23, 16 October 2003
(main): 4457
Talk: 445
User: 520
User talk: 997
Image: 84
Image talk: 8
MediaWiki: 38
MediaWiki talk: 10
Template: 92
Template talk: 6
Category: 23
Category talk: 2
Wikipedia: 1679
Wikipedia talk: 131

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Same stuff as before. Hey voters, if you don't know what that is then you haven't looked at my contributions and why are you trying to vote in that case? silsor 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well I kind of like my very first contribution, I didn't know anything about Wikipedia but I still cited a source with page number. Recently I wrote blunt force trauma out of a couple of medical textbooks and that's basically what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? I also tried to broker compromises on Mother Theresa and NAMBLA and I guess they turned out OK. silsor 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well I fought with Aplank and his socks in the days before we had sock checking, and they were exposed as socks; with Wik and he got banned; with RickK and he quit; with Plautus Satire and he turned out to be batshit insane and got banned anyway, so I'm kind of annoyed that we lost the contributions of three of those I just mentioned. However I don't particularly have a beef with any of them being gone. I also fought with Sam Hocevar and in the finest tradition of the mop service made up with him. I intend to deal with conflict by quadruple checking I'm right and they're wrong before getting into anything, and then behaving in an exemplary manner (see what I did there?). No user has ever caused me stress that I carry away from the keyboard after clicking "save page". silsor 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


A question from Deskana (extra questions are 100% optional of course)

I typically loathe having a candidate having excessive amounts of questions asked of them, but I would appreciate an answer. I will not vote oppose if you do not answer.

Q: Why did you "relinquish" your adminship, and why do you now wish it back?
Optional Answer: I dunked my sysop bit because I think it should be easy to go, and I wanted to see Wikipedia as a user again. It was a bit aggravating being caught up in the system for so long. I also wanted to see how Wikipedians would react to somebody not wanting more power, which turned out to be a pretty bizarre concept to some. Right now I would like sysop back because I'm ready to take a more direct role in maintenance and it would be really useful to be able to perform admin actions since I'm answering email for Wikipedia and often have to prod other people to do stuff. silsor 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Joelito

Q: Are you familiar with the proposed deletion process? What are your thoughts on it?
Q Regarding question #1 would you care to expand on "Same stuff as before"?
The above 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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Silsor_2_37fd.html"