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

SilkTork[edit]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

I have asked others to move pages quite a few times, so I would be happy to help out at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have an interest in AfD so would be happy to get more involved in closures, and to also pay attention to discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. When helping out at disputes or Wikipedia:Editor assistance I have sometimes needed to ask an admin to protect or unprotect a page, so I would take my turn at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It's worth pointing out that, in line with our founding principles, I am in favour of keeping a page open for editing as much as possible, but there are times when edit warring makes a page unstable, and while a page is still open, some editors don't fully engage in resolution discussion.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

I feel that my general involvement in the whole project is my best contribution. Being here, adding some information or a reference to an article, correcting some spelling, taking part in discussions, building guidelines, working on categories to aid navigating, taking part in AfD discussions - the whole thing gives me a sense of pride. I can get as much pride from uploading a photo I have taken, as from cleaning up an article, or building one from nothing, or turning round an AfD discussion, or helping people out in a dispute. One of the things I have taken most pride in is perhaps the reorganisation of the beer categories I did back in 2006. It was a significant tidy up of the whole system, and toward the end of the process involved a discussion with most members of the Beer Project to finalise details and get some of the bigger changes approved - an involvement that has not been matched since.

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?

I deal with conflict and the stress of others during my involvement in various Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and have some understanding of the causes and feelings. I can remain calm during these disputes because I am not involved. I know, however, what it feels like when someone is working against you in a topic you know quite well. However, I feel I can turn these disputes into good use. Disagreements are good. They are, in a sense, at the heart of our project. When an article has been through the crucible of dispute it often emerges harder and more brilliant, and more balanced. When every sentence and word has been fought over to ensure it reflects fairly the views of all sides in a topic, then we know that we are making progress. The actual disputes can sometimes be painful, but as long as we can keep a clear head, and there is someone there to lend assistance when things get heated, the project benefits. The Gluten-free beer article is what resulted from a dispute with User talk:Wikwobble. I found that very stressful, but I am pleased with the end result

Optional question from Guest9999

4. When closing an AfD discussion how would you take into consideration the following factors:

1. Your personal preference.
2. The arguments put forward in the discussion.
3. The proportion of contributors to the discussion who thought the article should be kept/deleted.
4. Consensus formed policies and guidelines.

--Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that the strength of the project is that as a community we discuss and debate the best ways forward and then write down our solutions as guidelines, so my personal preference is to follow community consensus and guidelines. As we grow and develop so some of our earlier guidelines get modified - and an AfD discussion can be the place where notability guidelines are modified, so we listen carefully to the arguments raised there. An overview needs to be taken on the proportion of views for keeping/deleting against a well structured and convincing argument, and that will depend on the circumstances. An argument using existing guidelines will stand up well against a hoard of !votes assserting I like it!. While an intelligent and convincing argument that goes against existing consensus and guidelines will be listened to and referred to in closing comments, but will not fare well against a stack of !votes that cite appropriate nobility guidelines. SilkTork *^YES! 08:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• See SilkTork's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for SilkTork: SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion[edit]

• What the heck is newpage patrol? Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is watching this log and tagging articles for deletion when necessary. I will also move this thread to the discussion section. Useight (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also tagging articles as "approved", and there's a HUGE backlog because not enough people realize how important it is. DS (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Support as nom. Owen× ☎ 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I've got a few minor "reservations" - you've virtually no expereince in the project space areas of C:CSD and WP:AIV so it's a bit tricky to see how you'd do there (not that you've stated you want to work there but still...). Also, I note your Q1 but there's not a lot of protection related activity either. However susbstantial content contribution to an area close to my heart and the associated talk / wiki projects etc. shows collaborative drive. Lots of WP:AFD stuff that looks okay. Civil user page, helpful manner, seems to have plenty of WP:CLUE. Net positive with the tools but go steady should you decide to start moving into blocking / speedy deleting would be the only thing I'd say. Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Secret ^account 16:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd like to see more RPP work if you want to help there, but another editor stupid enough willing to delve into the hell-hole that is DRV cannot be a bad thing :) Garden. 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak Support. Like Pedro said above, you're lacking some experience in a few places, so if you do decide to branch into CSD or AIV, I implore you to take it slowly. Useight (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Some experience in a few areas is missing as others have said, but with so many edits you've proven trustworthy and I think you'd use the tools well. Experience can be gained, my concern is whether giving you the tools is a net benefit for Wikipedia - and I think it is. FlyingToaster 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. "Good Ol' Pedro" said it best. CLUEful candidate who seems very mannered and I am sure he will not delve into areas where he has not worked in before without either consulting an admin who already works the area or looking at those admins' way of doing things. For example at WP:RFPP, you can easily see a backlog of fulfilled requests to learn from and I am sure he is willing to learn whatever he does not know. I know those areas Pedro mentioned from my own experience and I think I do an acceptable job there (and I learned it this way^^). Regards SoWhy 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Reliable with good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. I've seen SilkTork around on the WP:3O project from time to time during the past year or two. From what I've seen, this nominee has what it takes to be a good administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I'm a bit frightened by the number of children you have, though. How do you have time for Wikipedia? Good contributions, bound to do a great job as administrator. Darkspots (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - We have a good one here. — Realist² 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. AW HELL YEAH BOY Unyielding support - Absolutely no trust problems with this user, will not abuse the tools, massive positive contributions everywhere this user goes - what can I say. — neuro^(talk) 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Experienced, and ready to be an admin. Good Luck!! America69 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Per much of the above, good luck. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Clear support you are competent and committed in article space - that's all I require. The rest is easy in comparison, and you'll pick it up if you choose to do it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. I have opposed SilkTork for RfA in the past. While I still have some concerns, things are different now, I think. Support ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support although "SatinPork" would be a better username. :) iMatthew 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I think this user would be a good admin. Sam ^Blab 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Good article building, overall trustworthy. --Banime (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak Support. Please take it slow. I echo Pedro's concerns. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as meeting my standards, and having learned from the first RFA. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support If you don't intend to work in CSD or AIV, then why the hell do you need experience there? Trustworthy, and won't mess things up. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Seems like a friendly and knowledgeable editor, who has done a lot of good work here. AdjustShift (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Interaction with this user was pleasant. Have one on the house.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Weak Support No newpage patrol/WP:AIV experience, so he might not know how to deal with it at first, but I'm sure he'll manage. A very good Wikkipedian. Leujohn ^(talk)
28. Support, looks good. Wizardman 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I understand Pedro's concerns, but when an editor seems to be very focused on the policies and the activities they know, it reduces my concern that they will lunge into something they don't know, like WP:AIV, and start making bad decisions. Some people just have focus and maturity, and SilkTork is one of those people. I guess I'm also pushing back against the idea that the deletion and behavioral policies are what admins "ought" to know, and the other policies (which SilkTork knows well) are less important ... all Wikipedia policies are important, and SilkTork's broad knowledge is just what I'm looking for in an admin. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, other editors have called them concerns - I simply said "reservations". And they are pretty minor reservations at that, otherwise I'd be in Neutral or Oppose. If I for one moment thought SilkTork was likely to make bad blocks or poor deletions I'd not be supporting. Perhaps my support would be better couched as - "yep, you're clearly competent but please feel free to ask for input, if you feel it is needed, before working in areas you don't, on the face of it, appear to have expereince in.". Given Silk's clearly high quality edits I have no reason to believe he would be any less than capable in all areas of WP - but it's still polite to extend the courtesy of an offer of help and pragmatic (rather than condescending or something - I certainly hope it didn't sound like that!) to advise the candidate that a slow and steady approach is recommended in areas they may not be experienced in. Pedro :  Chat  14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lesson learned, I'll say "some of the concerns mentioned" next time ... didn't mean to single you out, and thanks for clarifying. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support Get involved with newpage patrolling and CSD! Article contributions are excellent though, think he can do great things with the mop. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak Support After very careful consideration.User has beem around since Jan 2006 and track is good and see no misuse of tools hence supporting through considered the fact of lack of editing in AIV, and New Page patrolling.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support I see no evidence that the user would abuse the tools and their general demeanour seems impressive. Also like their answer to the question I asked (4) - especially the first sentence. Guest9999 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Work is helpful, deserves the tools. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support long term user, clean block log, and I like this attitude. ϢereSpielChequers 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Why not? ^^ M.H.^{ITrue Romace iS Dead} 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support large amount of contributions, clean block log, net positive as an admin. per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. macy 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak Support - I like fish. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Sure, no issues here. GlassCobra 12:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - Good user, and I trust them. Xclamation point 13:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I believe he would make a great admin from reviewing his contributions and would toast him with a Paulaner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - worthwhile contributions to article writing and a good general understanding of policy is what I think an admin should have, and this user clearly satisfies these criteria. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Good candidate, net positive. DiverseMentality 04:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support A good editor, looks to be very enthusiastic and committed. I particularly like the answer to Q2, somehow :) Chamal ^talk 11:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Looks like a sensible person who won't do anything crazy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. A teacher eh? Well, Support anyway. :D X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per the above and RfA cliche #1. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - You are a good candidate with enough general experience and large number of contributions. I can see you are not an all rounder with admin areas, but you have experience in most areas you want to do admin work in. I do not see anything wrong in your contributions to AfD. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I gave him an exceptional newcomer award almost three years ago when he appeared and started improving beer related articles. He thinks before taking action and learns from any mistakes he does make. Needs a mop to clean up the beer spills before he gets the next round in. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support No problems here. Spencer^T♦C 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Synergy 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - Trustworthy individual. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support without reservation. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Weak support because although I can't swing one way or tother on this, there aren't really any concerns; and because of that and his contributions, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Great candidate, "in spite of" being like Newyorkbrad (see below). Cool Hand Luke 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I was coming here to support anyway, but my resolve was only strengthened by the ridiculous oppose and neutrals. Trusilver 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support: One mug of beer please! Oops ! :) I have seen this guy around for a long time and trust he wont break any beer mugs ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Per nom by OwenX (talk · contribs), per positive contributions to this project, per answers to the first three questions. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Of course. Really good user, seen him around a lot, perfectly fine!Andy (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - an excellent contributor who make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Fine editor. Acalamari 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support No problems here. LittleMountain5 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. I can't support any user who hasn't done any newpage patrol. DS (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's times like these I'm glad I became an admin 4 years ago... surely I would fail an RFA by an overwhelming margin if I tried now. ugen64 (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Wait, just wait. You can't support someone for lack of experience in an area they aren't going to participate in? Ha. Fair enough, it's a shame his 100% had to be ruined like this, though. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Neither have I. Should I resign? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Uh oh, I haven't touched that page at all until today. Does that mean I'm in trouble now? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yuk it up, you pair of dicks. DS is doubtless concerned that SilkTork may not have sufficient knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria to wield a particular button. If SilkTork were to make it explicit that he will familiarise himself with WP:CSD, you and DS can probably both rest assured that the anointed one can ascend unopposed. -- Molotron 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I see your point, but you might want to lay off the name-calling. Reyk _YO! 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a form of advertising really. Essentially RfA is almost the only place where one can influence the behaviour of editors interested in administrative tasks and draw their attention to neglected/backlogged areas. Perhaps I should start opposing candidates who have no edits on SCV? :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Per bad-faith Afd'ing. [1][2][3][4] --Coalesce-laugh (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for disruption. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Weak Neutral (if there is such a thing). No newpage patrolling or AIV experience, but meh. I dunno I need to think, so neutral for now... RockManQ ^(talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)_{Changed to support}[reply]

1. Neutral. Reasons for supporting include a nice userpage with barnstars that show the candidate has impressed and worked well with others and that the candidate has worked on good articles. That the candidate has never been blocked is also a plus. Reasons for opposing center on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover (inconsistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-pornographic films featuring nudity (while candidate's "argument" was in line with the close, there was no argument, just a vote and attempt at humor), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese dragons in popular culture (these in popular culture articles vary wildly in terms of both quality and potential, so saying "delete all" is not really fair or objective). With that said, some of the arguments I have seen in other discussions were reasonable so that coupled with the positives I mention above prevent me from opposing. I am going with a neutral rather than a weak support, however, as I hope that the candidate will take note of the above critical examples and as I do not believe my neutral will negatively effect the outcome. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Can I ask why you're not supporting him based on (as it seems to me) his failure to agree with your point of view in AFDs, and how that is relevant to how he will perform administrative duties? Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure. We are first and foremost here to build an encyclopedia. In order to do that we need both articles and contributors. Thus, when we consider what articles should and should not be kept we must do so carefully and in a manner that respects those who in good faith contributed to the articles under discussion. While I do have a sense of humor, I tend to approach Wikipedia a bit more humourlessly than usual, in part because my students use it and because I have myself made around 30,000 edits and devoted hours and hours of my time here as I believe that cataloging human knowledge and doing what no paper encyclopedia could do is a worthy venture. Accordingly, I expect more explanation from an admin than just "Hang on! I haven't made a note of them all yet....... There, that's done. Now then - Delete!" I think whoever worked on the article deserve more than that, i.e. a reason why. It is not merely a matter of disagreeing with me, but how the candidate disagreed. I provided a multi-sentence reason and even looked for and mentioned a source. I also returned to the discussion and replied to someone else rather than just making it a "vote" and moving on. Similarly with something like this, you have something close to an Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING. What is and is not "trivia" is really subjective; some might say that most or much of "encyclopedic" knowledge is trivia to some, and as far as "in popular culture" articles goes, the truth is that they vary considerably (take Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, for example) as to how we can build them and what sources exist. In fact a whole wikiproject is dedicated to improving these types of articles. So to just mock them or dismiss them outright is hardly a way of understanding why a good deal of our community believes it is worth their time writing them and an even greater number of our readers find us a good source for that kind of information. Sure some of those articles, not even I can really stand on solid ground defending, but for others I have seen even those usually on the deletionist side actually defend in the AfDs on occasion. Thus, saying "all" is disconcerting. Whether Chinese dragons in popular culture has in particular been discussed by scholars is besides the point there, but what is if someone automatically thinks "popular culture" is in the title, thus it must be deleted. I have no qualms with people deleting stuff that we can all agree on does not belong here per this, but I want to be sure that potential admins go about deleting or keeping articles by considering their individual merits rather than a delete all articles of this kind mentality or using humor that could potentially turn off/away contributors who volunteered their time to build the articles in questions. And in any event, I cannot imagine any editor who would want to support someone who has the potential to delete articles he/she worked on and defends in discussions. But more so than anything else, my primary cocnerns are that articles are not deleted due to any bias and also that no good faith contributors are turned off by insufficient justification. Admins do three things really: block/unblock, protect/unprotect, and delete/undelete. I would say that one-third of what they are likely to do is something to be considered carefully and seriously. Finally, as I say above, I see more positives than negatives with regards to this candidate, but I do not want to simply say my thoughts here in a support that is lost in the mix so that the candidate does consider and think about my criticisms, whether the candidate agrees with me or not. Were I worried that this RfA was going to fail, then maybe I would go for a weak support, but as an article rescuer I do get wary when I see votes rather than arguments or uncompromising approaches made in AfDs and I do think that in addition to the praise that I offer the candidate in my stance above, I should also offer some objectivity that may not be so positive as well, just as when I grade essays, I look for both positives and negatives. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral - Based on the very unfortunate AMA, but as it no longer exists, hopefully his judgment has improved. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.