Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/silsor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for removal of permissions. Please do not modify it. The matter has been referred to the stewards at meta:Requests for permissions for action.

[edit] silsor

Requests_for_adminship/silsor|action=edit}} Vote here (13/8/5/12) (sup/opp/neu/novote) ending 02:14 November 8th, 2:08AM UTC (UTC)

silsor (talk • contribs) – This is a request for myself to become a regular user. I think that I am well qualified for the role, having well over 7000 edits, about 4000 to which were to the article namespace. My usage of edit summaries is something fairly close to 100%. I feel confident that I have what it takes to move on to this next stage on the wiki. silsor 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Quick note: before stating your opinion in this RFA, it might be a good idea to check RFA talk for latest details.Kim Bruning 08:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. If that's what you want, but this isn't the place. m:Requests for permission is the place. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    The English Wikipedia is so high-traffic that we have our own page and process. Some people also seem to think that privilege levels on the English Wikipedia carry special import, so it's traditional to bring it to the wider attention of the community for approving changes. silsor 02:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. It'll be a great loss to wikipedia, and I'm not sure why you're seeking community approval for this since anyone is free to relinquish their admin privs at any point, but I fully support whatever you think is best. --fvw* 04:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Sorry to see you go, but it's your choice. If you change your mind before this RFA is complete, this vote is void.-gadfium 04:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.  Grue  13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. User seems confused by Wikipedia procedure. Proto t c 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, he seems like a good editor. I believe he could be trusted without the tools. Friday (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support if removal of access to the few extra tools is really what you want, although I don't think you need community approval. This should be no big deal. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Editing should be no big deal. Hall Monitor 21:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Is a fine admin and will be a fine user. Would usually like to see some abuse of admin rights, evidence of inability to handle disputes reasonably, or lack of interest in admin matters before granting deadminship, but as mentioned, this should be no big deal. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. *&*@&#*@&#*#! You beat me to this. I've been considering something like this for a while, but I still need admin tools to complete some of my tasks :-( Alright. You've done your time, you can come out of the gilded cage now. I'm just so jealous! We should call you an "honoured user" or "tenured user" or something from now on ( Apply for a title from JRM ). And have fun! Kim Bruning 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. He doesn't strike me as a bad admin, but if he doesn't want to be an admin I support him relinquishing it. Some people say that there doesn't need to be any vote, which is true, but I don't think it can ever hurt to have community input. On the other hand, I don't think what Silsor is doing here is entirely clear. I think he should be more direct about what he wants. Everyking 08:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. I dont really understand why you wish this, but I guess I can trust your judgement here.  ALKIVAR™ 09:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support because I love performance art, because silsor sounds genuine, because I think re-usering needs a kick, and because I'm hoping that whatever force is compelling the people who are complaining that this "wastes their time" to edit this page against their will will grab me next - brenneman(t)(c) 11:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support: I have to admit I am perplexed and baffled by this request, but as the requestor is a good editor and has repeatedly said this is made in good faith and not to make a point, I'll support with best wishes. Jonathunder 15:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support (moved from no vote) I support only because I think Silsor needs to lose adminship/"gain usership". This RfA is weird enough such that someone who insists on it can't be trusted as an admin. Xoloz 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support per Xoloz --Ryan Delaney talk 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support per Xoloz. De-admin this fellow. Marskell 11:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support You so have my respect, Sir. Along with my vote, which you will have again should you ever change your mind and for some insane reason wish to be "re:admined"--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support: Why not. Should be no big deal. No Account 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Strong oppose — this is an attempt to institute Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship as a fait accompli. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, as I feel going to Requests for Permission, and possibly announcing it on the Village Pump and Administrators' Noticeboard would be better. On another note, good luck with the rest of your life, and try to contribute as a regular user. Best wishes. Ral315 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. I oppose this. Silsor is a GREAT admin! 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)~
  4. OPPOSE, silsor we need people like you not less. PLEASE withdraw this. --Cool Cat Talk 03:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose request at meta, this is bordering on WP:POINT. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    This page is not disruptive not intended to be disruptive in any way. Or if it is, then it should be no more "disruptive" than any other page. silsor 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. We are in control of you. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 07:06
  7. This is nonsense. If you truly want to be de-sysopped, go to the meta, please. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. silsor, even if you only carry out one admin function a year, I would still rather you keep the sysop rights, since you've already proven that you don't abuse that power. But here is an alternate suggestion: create a new section in WP:LA called Editors who stopped acting as admin, and move your name there from the Active List. Please also read my comments on the talk page. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Silsor used to be one of the administrators I highly respected, but the place to request de-adminship is on m:Request for permissions or on the talk page of a steward. The outcome of this poll is irrelevant; Silsor will still have to request de-adminship at one of those places just as he would without asking our permission first. RfA is not the place to place polls on whatever whim one is interested in, nor to help gauge effects, demonstrate people's views on adminship, and so on. Silsor's creation of this non–request for adminship and his insistence on continuing it despite the opposition to its presence clearly shows he is not suitable for adminship. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I'd like to see some more edit warring and some use of sockpuppetry. Losing your temper on a semi-regular basis would help also. I cannot trust Wikipedia if this user does not have the tools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose because I think we need more admins. I don't think Silsor needs my permission to drop adminship, but since he's asking, I'm going to say no. Tuf-Kat 23:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. More like baffled, actually. What point are you trying to make? —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. I don't get it. If you want to be de-sysopped, we don't need to vote on it. Andre (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. As Mirv. — Dan | Talk 14:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. This is not a request for adminship; the outcome requested does not need community approval; bureaucrats at English Wikipedia don't have the database privilege to carry out the request; the only way to fulfill the request is to post at m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access ("Self-de-adminship [...] can be requested here, and will be granted immediately."), and I have now done so on your behalf. Some might call this WP:POINT, but that seems unlikely given that nobody can figure out what the point in question would be. I hope you will continue as an editor and consider reapplying for adminship in the future. -- Curps 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC), 16:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC), 19:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Same as Curps. This ain't the place. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. delete nn cruft --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Huh? Can't you just stop using your admin privs? AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No vote

  1. This is "Requests for adminship". RfAs are closed by bureaucrats who lack ability and authority to de-admin someone. You are asking in the wrong place, as the parties that would need to hear this request are not a regular part of RfA. You are shopping for a car in a grocery market. This RfA should be delisted. --Durin 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    If this passes (hopefully) 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? silsor 03:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    As noted by several other people here, your request can be passed on right now without involving WP:RFA. Nobody has to vote to remove your admin status if you want to have it removed. Being an admin is not a sentence from which you must be released by the community. What you are doing is the equivalent of placing a request for Arbitration on WP:AFD arguing that if it passes (well, fails in this case) ArbCom will be made aware of it. This is entirely inappropriate. All you have to do is ask in the appropriate places. You've been told where to go. Now please, go. --Durin 13:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support speedy delisting RfA. This is not the place - if he wants out, he knows who to ask.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 3:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Please see my comment #5 below. silsor 03:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comment #5 does not does not answer my comment at all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Additionally, I stand by my contention that this is highly innapropriate and will lead to back-door requests for de-adminship. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. I vote confused. I support voluntary votes of confidence for admins, but -- per question 6 -- this isn't one... so, huh? Xoloz 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. De-list. It might not be especially disruptive, nor is the "point" very clear, but definite shades of WP:POINT. If you want RFD, make a proposal for such a process (and have better luck than previous such attempts); if you want to be de-sysopped, make a request for it through the correct channels (which this is not, either technically or procedurally); if you want to make some other statement, or gain some other input, start an RFC on yourself. So in other words, "remit to self". Alai 06:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. There's a simple process; this is not it. Histrionic gestures can go somewhere else. --Tabor 06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Why? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Bicycle. android79 14:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. I do not think this RFA is necessary. For example, User:Ta bu shi da yu just basically asked Angela to de-sysop him on 14 March 2005. [1] [2]. Of course, TBSDY later successfully nominated himself for a second tenure as an admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. ^^ What he said. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. TBSDY is a good precedent Lectonar 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Bureaucracy gone mad! Given any admin can simply request desysoping, this is a rather annoying waste of everyone's time. It strikes me that it is bordering on pure vanity.Doc (?) 09:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Misfiled request as others have pointed out. If you want your sysop bit flipped back, just ask a steward. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Speedy delete. Euh, I mean Oppose. No wait I actually mean Speedy delete this entire entry. The Minister of War(Peace) 15:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. All your vote are belong to us. Even after reading the comments, I can't understand why you don't just ask on Meta to have your adminship removed. Community consensus is not needed to take away powers, for obvious reasons. ~~ N (t/c) 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Munch pills and listen to electronic music. In October silsor used:
    • Delete 6 times
    • Protect once
    • Block once
    • Unblock 0 times
    • Unprotect once
    • Undelete 2 times
      • A total of 11 admin actions
    You're not our least active admin by far, so there's no reason why you "don't need" the mop and flamethrower anymore. Alphax τεχ 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Huh? Why do you need community approval to remove admin privileges? I was under the impression you could just ask a steward. Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    The purpose of this RF{A|D} is the same as any other entry on WP:RFA. It's a simple change in access privileges, there's no significant difference between one and the other. See also my comments above and below. silsor 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for the answer; it clears up a number of things. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not like this at all. --Cool Cat Talk 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neither do I. This is highly innapropriate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no point to this, and we've already established that "confirmation votes" are against policy. If you want to resign your adminship, use the form on meta to request it. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    As we discussed on IRC, this is not a confirmation vote (and see new comment #6 below). Additionally, your comment assumes both that I want to be confirmed as an admin and to give it up. You might be thinker than you drunk. silsor 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, you want a promotion from admin to user, implying that admins are less desirable, less refined ... something along thoes lines? Maybe you had a bad day today interacting with other admins? If so, and you feel a need to lash out, please don't. We all have bad days. Please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. And please correct me if my take on the situation is wrong. --Duk 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to imply that being an admin is less desirable. I had a clash with some other admins this morning, but that happens all the time here and it's unrelated to this. As I said to GregAsche above, this page is not intended to be disruptive. However, the unexpected way some people have reacted to it shows that they really need to rethink the diseased way they look at RFA. silsor 04:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    Sounds fair enough, and I'm glad to be wrong about your motivations. --Duk 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If I read this correctly, Silsor is requesting permission to request permission to be desysopped. We already have a functional, established procedure for this process which entails significantly less wasted bandwidth, time, effort, and attention—post a request at m:Requests for permission and be done with it. Speedy close this 'request' and let him ask for his privileges to be withdrawn. If Silsor prefers to keep his adminship and is trying to make some greater point, he should just come out with it, and not dick around with some fake RFdeA to play games and waste our time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think enough people have voiced their opinoins here, but I really want to know what Silsor's goal is here. Adminship is voluntary, you have to want to be an admin. Of course, as you know, if you don't want to be an admin, you can request for those permissions to be removed. I really don't understand your reasoning for creating this RfA (err... request for demotion). If your de-adminship fails, what happens then, you have to remain an admin? This just seems a bit dramatic/sarcastic/ridiculous to me. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What the hey? I thought that if you wanted to voluntarily give away your AdministrativePower, all you had to do was drop a note to a steward or a developer, and they would do it at their leisure. I don't see any possible need for a formal request to the community. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, RfAs are normally monitored and judged by bureaucrats, and BureaucraticPower does not allow taking AdministrativePower away. You have to appeal to a higher authority, and this is not the place where they generally hang out. — JIP | Talk 08:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to see Boothy vote for this. Tintin 11:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think some of us are genuinely concerned about you, silsor. Are you feeling OK? Is this request a result of real life pressures or Wikistress? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what the purpose of your purpose is with this...nor do I see what purpose quoting others here is all about. MONGO 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that admins are "regular" users; and further, that adminship doesn't help you improve Wikipedia in various ways. In my view, this makes this a no-op, with no meaningful outcome since this picture isn't in the right frame. I like the idea of opening a dialog on how adminship now differs from what it used to be, and exactly what adminship should mean (I have my own opinions). However, a slap of the hand to silsor for triggering a pet peeve--using a rhetorical device or an interpretive wikidance to get a point across instead of just saying it. Gah! Demi T/C 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. It seems likely that I will not be able to help with too many sysop chores. This is an unfortunate side effect of moving on to usership privileges and status. silsor 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think that Cheomseongdae is a pretty good article. It has changed some since I did the initial work on it, though. I have an interest in some Korean topics due to personal history and related choices in study topics at school, so this and National treasures of Korea are like pets to me. silsor 02:25, 1 November 2005 (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. I have made a number of good calls regarding users who turned out to be sockpuppets of others or users who are now banned. I've been involved in a fair number of conflicts over the last couple of years, and I have gotten stress from a fair number of users as well. Fortunately I usually turn out to be right, and apologize when I don't. I feel that having user privileges will greatly increase my ability to deal with people who are suspicious of authority. silsor 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Is this a joke?
A. No. I know that I have been here longer than most users, so long that in fact I was sysopped directly in the database instead of passing an RFA. Nevertheless I ask that you would observe the courtesy of allowing my request to run for the usual length and pass criticism and support or opposition by the rest of the community, as anything else would be unfair to other users. silsor 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Shouldn't you use m:requests for permission or ask a steward?
A. Comments embedded in this page point to no. silsor 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Did you set this up as a confirmation vote? Did you just want people to come and vote "oppose" so you can feel loved?
A. No. This should be clear already. silsor 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Are you trying to create a de-adminship procedure?
A. No. silsor 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Do you believe that community permission or consensus is–or should be–required for a user to have his or her admin privileges voluntarily withdrawn? If so, why?
A. No. silsor 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Given your answers to 6, 7, and 8 above, why are you using this page to make a request to be deadminned? Specifically, why are you not directly placing this request at m:requests for permission?
A. I really did choose to be deadminned to continue my work on Wikipedia. I believe that I and anybody else can contribute to Wikipedia just as effectively no matter what the privilege level involved. After that decision, I decided to go about changing my position in a different yet straightforward way. This request will help me gauge the effect of becoming a user, show me how people view the two different "statuses" (which they aren't, really), and help me find out where RFA and en-wiki-adminship have gone so badly wrong. Now I am going to leave this page alone, let it run its course, and hope that nobody puts those ridiculous "do not edit this page further" tags back on it. silsor 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote yes

10 Have you seen Owens comments on RFA talk and here? That might be a better procedure. Would you choose to do that instead?
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_silsor_3168.html"