Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SilkTork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] SilkTork

Final (6/6/2) 10:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn by candidate)

SilkTork (talk · contribs) - Hi. I am nominating myself. I have been editing on Wiki since 12 January 2006 with this humble edit on The Kinks. I have over 12,000 edits, over 8,000 of those in the mainspace. During my time here I have been involved in various aspects of Wiki, and - even though I keep coming upon areas, procedures and guidelines I'd not previously encountered - I feel I have a comfortable awareness of the main processes. The reason I am requesting the extra tools is that in the course of my editing I occasionally come upon pages that may need protecting, or a tricky move, or I'd like to edit a page or template that is fully protected; also, I like to help out with Prod Patrolling, and more than once a page has been deleted while I was looking at it, which led me to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where I feel I'd like to help out. As well as mainspace editing I do like to help out at various maintenance tasks, responding to requests for assistance on the now discredited Association of Members' Advocates and on Third opinion, and generally pottering around. By having the extra tools I feel I could contribute a little bit extra to Wiki, and I'm ready to do that. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: As mentioned above, I would intend the tools to enhance my current editing and general maintenance assistance, though Wikipedia:Deletion review is an area I would be particularly interested in helping out. Vandal fighting is something that is frequently mentioned on RfA, and even though I have rolled back and reverted some vandalism, I have to admit that is not an area I have much experience as I do not go searching for vandalism. I do not envisage at this stage blocking a user.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I was pleased with some of my early contributions, such as Scottish beer, though because of lack of sources, and the poor merge of Scottish Ale, I now find such contributions lacking, and I intend to go back and sort them out. I was pleased with the assistance I gave to some students to allow them to create Pure tone audiometry, and through the long debate on Gluten-free beer managing to help User:Wikwobble create a decent article.
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: Unfortunately my start on Wiki caused a conflict with Mais oui!. I feel I kept a level head in the face of his concern. Later I came into conflict with some fellow editors on the Beer Project who felt I was editing too quickly without consensus: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive2#Edits_by_User:SilkTork. I discussed matters with those involved, and then took a break to think things over. I am much more inclined these days to seek consensus where there may be potential conflict, though I can still be quite bold on occasion. Throughout all disputes I do communicate fully and in a civil manner, and am always prepared to carry out consensual decisions, even when I argued against them. My worse sin was getting annoyed when a user left comments about me that I felt to be misleading - my response was inappropriate.

Optional question from JodyB:

4. Thank's for your offer. I'd like you to discuss a series of comments you made at ANI. Specifically here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In view of these diffs above, please discuss your understanding of checkuser.
A: My interest in that case was initially raised with the blocking of a user which seemed a bit harsh, and I asked for clarity. The clarity was slow in coming. I knew little about the checkuser process prior to that, and grew uncomfortable with some aspects of what I learned during the discussion. I feel there was a fair degree of cross-purpose going on during the discussion. I suspect that people felt I was asking for either private material to be revealed, or for damaging detective method to be disclosed. I felt I was asking why the user was suspected in the first place based on the information before us, and lack of clear evidence of wrong-doing. I am disappointed that checkuser requests can be made in private with no accountability, and would prefer Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to always be used. In this case it turned out that the account was checked incidently during a checkuser on another account, and that the explanation, stretching credibility as it does, of three different users at the same place discovering a shared interest in AfD was potentially viable. The account was unblocked. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Epbr123:

5. Have you been in any conflicts during Afd or DRV discussions? Epbr123 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I have engaged in discussion and I have sometimes put forward my case with more than one statement, though I can't recall an actual conflict. One discussion I do recall because I was entirely alone in my view, and continued flogging the poor horse long after it had died was Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_11#Category:Microbreweries. There will be perhaps two or three others like that - not conflicts, but me debating more than is healthy. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Jreferee:

6. In view of your recent assertion that I should be embarrassed by my AfD closures and that I need to pause and reacquaint myself with the requirements for notability sources before closing any more AfDs, please (6A) discuss the thought process you have applied in closing AfDs and (6B) your understanding of notability. -- Jreferee t/c 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
6A:
6B: This edit on WP:Bio may give an indication of my understanding of notability. I have also worked on some notability essays, such as Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations), Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). I am interested in getting across the message that people should be using reliable sources, and in my own recent editing you may note that I frequently add sources to articles in the course of my Wiki browsing. One area regarding sources that I would be interested to explore is that of subjects which have attracted significant attention within their field yet fall outside the usual accepted reliable sources because of the nature of the field itself. WP:PORNBIO, for example, was originally written with that in mind, and care had to be taken in merging it into WP:Bio to keep some awareness of that. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 02:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. I'm familiar with SilkTork's work on the third opinion project and wholeheartedly support the candidacy. — Athaenara ✉ 13:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - trustworthy candidate. Addhoc (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I've admired this editor's work, especially on the beer articles, for a while now. His solid record gives me confidence that SilkTork will make a welcome contribution to the custodial staff. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, but try to diversify out of beer in your editing patterns :) Stifle (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Yeah definitely. The user has helped me out quite considerably. I find him to be a cool, calm and supportive editor who will make an exceptional admin. All the best, ScarianTalk 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support getting involved with WikiProjects--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Per answer to question #4 (a variant of which I was planning to ask myself, actually), I don't think you, at this time, have the soundness of judgement and the level of discretion required to be an admin. Perhaps later, if your approach changes substantially. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think your answers to Q4 and Q5 are concerning and both seem have the same problem at their root. The problem, and you sum it well, is "debating more than is healthy." We need people you can state their case clearly and with economy. Sometimes it is best to just walk away. JodyB talk 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per diffs provided and per answer to question 4. There are too many concerns right there for this candidate. Sorry - Alison ❤ 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Lack of AGF and clue regarding lar's judgement as shown in the diffs and the answer to #4, as well as ignorance of the role of checkusers, and the privacy policy. --DarkFalls talk 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    I can see this is now going to run away from me because of that incident, and I accept that people feel there is enough concern about what happened there that my judgment can't be trusted with the extra facilities. It concerns me, however, that I'm still not sure what I did wrong. And it would be helpful if it could be pointed out. From my perspective I was asking a question in order to get some reassurance and not getting a satisfactory answer so I continued asking the question. The tone of my language did get sharp because it didn't then, and still doesn't now, appear to me to be a question that needed to be avoided as much as it was. As I said above, perhaps there was a misunderstanding of my question, or the reasons for my question. Or, perhaps I am missing something entirely - and it would be helpful if someone could explain. And just so we are not talking at cross-purpose (because the privacy comment was raised at the time, and has been raised again here), please look again at what I was asking for - I was looking for the evidence (or reasons) that LED to the checkuser REQUEST, I wasn't asking for the evidence that Lar looked at with the check. Eventually Lar provided the answer: [1] there was no prior evidence, he discovered stuff that led him to the block while looking for something else. Please note that I do not ask him to reveal what he found. Some very experienced people are saying what I did was wrong, so I'd welcome an explanation. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    Silk, being an administrator demands a certain level of discernment - knowing when to stop barking up a tree. As you well know, Wikipedia is given to extreme displays of drama which often involves administrators. It is essential that admins maintain a high degree of calmness. The diffs I offered in #3 show that you just kept on and kept on. Your question, by itself was not a problem. But when you didn't get the answer you wanted you escalated the discussion. Here you really turned it up a notch and suggested Lar was somehow acting improperly. Now, he could have dealt with you a little differently, but what he said was not wrong or improper. Remember, his response was after about 4 replies to the same sort of question. In #5 you were the sole delete !vote. In spite of that you kept on. Sometimes, Silk, you just have to accept that consensus is not with you.
    Now, do not misunderstand, you are a fine editor and will make a fine administrator. I would suggest you continue your editing for a another two or three months, create and maintain a clean record, watch your debating and come back. I'll be happy to assist in any way provided you work to relax a bit. In three months, if you work hard, I'd consider nominating you. -JodyB talk 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    I understand what you are saying. It's like edit-warring. I'll take that on board. Would you recommend I withdraw from this RfA at this point? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: At this time, per the concerns raised here. Given that those brief judgement lapses (and I'm sure that is all they were) happened so recently, I'd like to make sure that you have gotten it out of your system before giving you the extra tools. I hope you keep doing what you are doing (well, almost everything : ) and come back in a couple of months. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per all the reasons stated above. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral While I like the work you have been & are doing, the opposers raise a good point, and question #4 does leave me a little hesitant. I hope you try again in the future however! Best of luck. Jmlk17 01:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I see some good contributions, and have few concerns about the trustworthiness of the candidate... however, I must agree - question 4 has be a little nervous. I look forward to a well-reasoned and thought out answer to Question 6. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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.