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


Silver seren[edit]

Final (37/44/15); Closed by bibliomaniac15 at 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for closing rationale. bibliomaniac15 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Silver seren (talk · contribs) – Silver seren has been in the project since June 2006, and after 1500 edits and a year-long break after 2007, he returned in September 2009, having over 6700 edits to his credit. An inclusionist, he has rescued tons of articles from certain deletion in AFD, 146 of them on his userpage. Rescuing articles, an editor must know a bunch of guidelines and especially learn the concept of WP:V and WP:RS, where he is active on the reliable sources noticeboard [1] [2]. He has 13 DYK, including several that could be good articles like Yukon Wolf, and Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. Me being a hard-core deletionist, nominating an inclusionist is hard ;), but I think Silver seren would be the perfect adminstrator. Thanks Secret account 03:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: Silver seren contributes admirable efforts to Wikipedia, saving numerous articles in danger of deletion by improving their quality while at AFD. Furthermore, Silver seren exhibits an amiable, professional, and polite demeanor — and even in interactions where I have observed an opposing viewpoint, Silver seren maintains this welcome attitude. These are all sorely needed characteristics in a sysop. Silver seren would make a fine administrator on this project. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Secret and Cirt for nominating me. SilverserenC 03:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to focus on clearing out parts of the administrative backlog, such as Redirects for Discussion, Requested Moves, and Categories for Discussion, while also dipping my toe into Speedy Deletion. I would begin with only the most obvious cases in those areas, and get help from more experienced administrators for specific situations that are more ambiguous and complex in nature. This would be the way for me to slowly work on becoming competent and experienced in those areas and sufficiently neutral for the tasks required.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would consider my best contributions to Wikipedia to include the creation of articles such as, other than the ones the nominator already listed, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf, Lado Ketskhoveli, and War of Laws, along with the expansions I have made to existing articles, such as Mesame Dasi (before and after), Norrie May-Welby (before and after), and Status paradox (before and after). I would also say that my heavy involvement in AfD discussions is important to the project, as i'm able to find those articles that can be saved, improve them, and end up with material that will remain on Wikipedia and is better than it was originally.
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: One of the older examples of a conflict that I was heavily involved in would be the Saffron Terror AfD in 2008, where I ended up more arguing with other editors, rather than putting forth a policy-based argument. After that, I lost interest in Wikipedia for a while, but I eventually came back and set about understanding policy better and how things work on Wikipedia.
A more recent example of conflict would be the Noah Ringer AfD back in April, where I got into a bit of a fight with User:Rodhullandemu. Looking back on it now, I can see that we both had our policy-based points, but things just got a bit too heated and I regret the fact that I was unable to keep calm during it.
Other examples would include a conflict on Talk:Criticism of Judaism that involved sourcing issues. You can see my comments scattered around throughout the archives. In that instance at least, while I did end up getting frustrated, I still feel that I didn't blow up like I did in previous situations.
The last example that stands out in my mind was the FBI Seal situation that occurred last month on Jimbo Wales' talk page. You can find the discussion here. I'm not going to say anything specific about it, since that would involve putting up my opinion on the subject and I don't want to get into that debate yet again. Let me just say that it is also an example of a situation where I became extremely frustrated with other users and especially User:Off2riorob. This ended up extending onto T:TDYK here and then onto my talk page here. For this situation, since it was so recent, I don't have a very long hindsight view as I do for some of the others and I still feel like my actions were justified. I do believe that, once again, I could have stayed more calm than I did, which is something I am still working on doing in situations where things get heated, and I do believe I am steadily making progress in that area.
I am hoping that I will eventually get to the point where I will be able to explain my point or my side in an issue, but I will be able to keep myself completely calm, no matter the arguments that come my way, and will be able to also calmly respond to those arguments. I'm still a bit too emotional, but it is something I will continue to work on.
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
4. Secret called you an "inclusionist"; what do you think about being an inclusionist, both in regard to yourself and in general? Does this hinder you in making good judgments at times? How well can you understand deletionist (or other opposing views') arguments at AfD? Can you give any specific situations/diffs in which you showed a clear understanding of the reasoning behind an opposing view's arguments?
A: I don't personally consider myself to be an inclusionist, though it appears that I do fit the criteria or the mold for that term to apply. I think terms like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" try to fit users into a box in order to better define their actions, but I don't think that is the proper thing to do. Every user is their own individual person and there are differences between them and others, even if they might also have similarities with other people. There will always be some things that they do differently.
But, in terms of what inclusionists work toward, I believe that it is better for an encycploedia to expand rather than contract, considering we are not paper and all. I think that removal of unimportant information is always something that can be done later, but that removing it as soon as possible and also possibly removing useful and vital information in the process is not helpful to the growth of Wikipedia as a whole. However, this does not mean that I don't think some information should be removed. Clearly non-notable topics, copy paste spam topics of other topics, content forks that bring nothing new, and hoaxes and things should most definitely be removed as soon as possible. Removal of that sort of information is something I am not against.
I do not believe that it hinders my judgement in (i'm assuming you're talking about) AfD discussions. I do not go into a discussion thinking that the subject is automatically notable, just as I wouldn't go into a discussion thinking subjects were immediately non-notable if I was more toward the mold of a deletionist. I start off with neutral thoughts about a subject and my determination of notability is made strictly from the sources that can be found on the subject and whether the subject will meet any of the Additional Criteria of the Notability guidelines. So, in short, no, I do not believe my actions in trying to rescue articles hinders me in making good judgement calls.
I can understand the viewpoints of deletionists fairly clearly, with the view that an encyclopedia should only contain information that is important and everything that is trivial or only borderline important should be removed. I see, comprehend, and understand the viewpoint, it is merely that I have a different opinion and idea than deletionists do (or whichever type is on the opposing side).
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
5. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?.
A: I do not believe that an administrator should be issuing "orders", so much as informing other users of their actions and how they should behave better (assuming this is a behavior issue). In this hypothetical page or topic, the administrator needs to make sure that they are completely uninvolved in the situation if they are going to be banning anyone from the page or topic. If the user in question has been acting negatively or breaking policy, that would be something that might require a short block, but if it is something about a user that is consistently working against consensus in a topic, then if I am an administrator, it is not my right to ban them from the topic, no, a topic ban proposal would need to be created and receive consensus from the community before that user is topic banned. An administrator, even if they're uninvolved (as they should be in any situation where they are utilizing their admin tools), only has the right so much as to inform the offending user of what they are doing wrong, but any action taken against them needs to be done with the support of the community.
Additional optional question from Qwyrxian
6. On your user page, you have links to a few essays; one of them, written by you, is titled How I Feel About The Project, and the other, written a while ago by another editor, is titled The Stolfi Manifesto. Please discuss a) how you will use, if approved, your own adminship to improve what your essay says is a potentially fatal flaw in Wikipedia caused by what you identify as two conflicting goals, and b) whether you believe The Stolfi Manifesto accurately describes the decision making process found on Wikipedia today.
A:I have noticed that a number of the Oppose votes have focused on my essay, so I feel that it is definitely something I need to explain. While many users seem to believe that the essay shows that I think that Wikipedia is doomed to failure, that is not true. I believe that the things I listed are issues that need to be rectified or they will continue to impede Wikipedia and have the possibility of making the project fail. However, I personally believe in everything that this project was made for and I have hopes that Wikipedia will indeed overcome these issues, rise above them, and become all the better for it. The essay is not meant to be gloomy or to say that I think the project will fail 100%, it was meant to explain problems that need to be fixed. I know I am not smart enough to fix them, but I believe Wikipedia as a community can.
I do not believe it is the admins that have to fix the problems I listed, it is the community. Me becoming an admin will do nothing to fit the issues I outlined and me having admin tools will not affect them at all. The only tool that I have to fix them, the tool I always had, was my voice in the community. It is all users, admins and regular editors alike, that must work together to face these things.
Now, onto the Stolfi Manifesto. I would like to note, as you correctly asked, that the part of the Stolfi Manifesto that interests me is the point about the lack of attendence in the straw poll asnd not anything else. I do believe that this has changed to some extent, as can be evidenced in the Pending Changes straw poll that recently closed and featured a very good proportion of users voicing their opinions. What worries me is the smaller polls that take place on talk pages of various articles, projects pages, and other places, the ones that don't get very much attendence beyond the direct group of people that proposed it. It is these sorts of polls that bug me, because any sort of consensus that comes out of them can clearly be said to not represent the Wikipedia community as a whole, which polls are meant to do.
Additional optional question from User:Hipocrite
7. You are a memebr of the Article Rescue Squad. Could you briefly summarize why you are a member? Do you believe there are currently problems with the article rescue squad? How should those problems be dealt with? What have you, personally, done to ameliorate those problems? Thanks for your time, and best wishes.
A: I originally joined the Article Rescue Squadron because I wanted to learn to help improve articles and save them at AfD. The ARS seemed like a good group to work together with to that end.
I do believe that there are problems in the ARS, as a few of the members have ended up being banned because of their actions. A number of them were new editors, but not all. I think that the ARS needs to more properly define how it works, because the people who join are going to view it (as I did in the beginning) as a way to find articles that should be kept and to go vote keep on them. It is this sort of thing that leads to issues of "canvassing" on AfDs by members, to the point that if just two of us show up independently at an AfD, we might get called out for telling others about it, when we didn't.
The one thing i've done to help deal with this problem is that i've foregone the use of the Rescue template on articles that are at AfD. The only thing that does is get others to vote keep, without a clear rationale as to why the article should be kept and, often, without any improvements being made to the article. Nowadays, while I am still a member of the ARS, I operate more or less independently, working on improving an article the best I can before I even vote in an AfD. The only time I contact other members is if i'm having trouble finding references for a subject (references that I am fairly certain that are out there), so I can get their expertise in finding them and improving the article. Though I do that very seldomly.
I now believe that ARS as an organization has a bit too many problems to work in a completely capable manner. It has the tendency to get too many new editors that don't understand the policies properly and that only reflects badly on the ARS. Thus, I am really only a satellite member at this point. I do believe several of the other members are very capable editors in their own right and extremely helpful when they show up to improve a page, but it is the rest that are an issue.
Additional question from User:Colonel Warden
8. When I sample your contributions, I find a long break between September and March. Please say a little about these breaks, if you will. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm assuming you mean the period of September 2009 to March 2010? Well, that's getting a bit into personal information there, which I have no problem with divulging, though I do not believe has any relevance to this RfA. But, in short, my parents disowned me in late September of 2009 and I was without access to a computer until I had more stable living conditions, which was around March of 2010. Since then, i've been extremely active on Wikipedia. And, before you ask, the reason why I have so few contributions for June and July of this year is because I was focusing very heavily on doing scholarships for college.
  • Thank you. Given your personal circumstances, do you think that doing additional work on Wikipedia is prudent? Will you be able to keep up with your studies or would admin work be a distraction? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be seen from most of the recent months (especially the last two), I have been extremely active even while I am attending college and that is something I intend to continue. I'm not going to say that I will consistently be around, as I don't know the future, but what I can see and from what college life has been so far, I should be active the same amount I have always been. Though i'll probably be missing during Finals week, but you know how that goes. SilverserenC 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from User:Strange Passerby
9. Please describe your view of WP:IAR. Do you think it is one of Wikipedia's better, or less effective, policies?
A: I believe that Ignore All Rules is one of our most important, but also most dangerous policies on Wikipedia. It allows users to act in a manner that would, hopefully, end up with the encyclopedia being better than it was before, even if that means circumventing other guidelines or policies in the process. The major issue I have with IAR is its high potential to be abused. I think that it is very difficult to determine if certain actions are beneficial via IAR and that people who utilize it have the possibility of thinking they are improving things, when they are truthfully not. This is especially true if IAR is used in disputes between users. Content disputes can get extra ugly. It's for these reasons that I do not believe I have ever invoked IAR on my side, since it is a policy with a lot of potential for both good and ill. And because i've never had the need to invoke it, as I can very easily improve the encyclopedia by following the other policies and guidelines.
In total, I do believe that IAR brings a net positive to Wikipedia, as its misuse is something that i've only seldom seen. This is something that I am thankful for. As long as the majority of users try to utilize IAR in a good and useful manner, I will continue to view it as one of our most important, dangerous, but beneficial policies.
10. Given the chance, which policy or guideline on Wikipedia would you modify, how would you do so, and why?
A:I do not believe that there is a policy or guideline that I would like to modify. There are certainly some Additional Criteria pages that I feel are too restrictive and do not fit with the flow of the other AC pages (Like science-related articles verses other types of articles), but I have no problem with our Key Policies and Guidelines. I feel that Wikipedia was created in a manner that took a lot of thought and work to get right and that, over time, it has become something that, in terms of its main rules, closely reaches perfection when looking at the wanted outcomes from the rules we have on Wikipedia.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, as co-nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nom Secret account 04:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support How can I not support when he's using my userbox more effectively than I am? Seriously, rescuing articles is one of the worst jobs around here: it's time-bound, thankless, and subject to abuse from nominators who want to get their way more than see an article improved to actually meet inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I have frequently seen him at AfD rescuing articles and putting forth good arguments. A little bit inclusionist, but overall a net positive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good contributions and good answers, particularly question 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I like the article rescue work; fixing articles that are on death row (rather than just saying "keep") is commendable and requires a broad knowledge of policies &c. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Strong contributions and a reasonable level of policy knowledge. Answer to Q1 in particular is exemplary. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Secret's nomination. Rescuing articles shows that he has always been a helpful, trusted & valuable contributor. Minimac (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Good work on making bad articles better. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I think adminship here would be an overall net positive to the project. If the candidate keeps a close eye on policy, and takes care not to ignore the GNG, there should be no problem. The judgement issues noted below seem to be good-faith attempts to improve the project, and don't bother me as much as they probably should, but I believe this candidate can properly handle the mop. And that's what RFA seeks to determine. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - per above. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:27pm • 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - No red flags. None of the oppose arguments (to date) concern me. Good faith user, motivated, is able to refine his understanding of wikipedia policies in an ongoing way. I'm one who see this editor as an admin being a net positive. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I don't find the opposes convincing enough to keep me from supporting. This user is a net-positive to the project, and I'm sure he'll use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support longterm experienced user with a clean blocklog. And kudos for Secret's nomination. Rescuing articles by referencing them is one valid way of building the Pedia, the trick is to know which articles are worth rescuing. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Talented, helpful and collegial – just the sort we need more of. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I am not sure I agree with Silver on a number of things. Notability is one area I might well have a higher threshhold for... but after looking over this editor's contributions, I conclude that I don't have to agree with everything Silver thinks. This is strong user who is deeply involved with the project. Having the tools will be a net plus, and I am happy to extend support. With all due respect to opposers, in my view their case has not been convincingly made. My best wishes to the candidate. Jusdafax 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support When everything is weighed out, the positives have it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Inka888 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Article building contributions are clearly a positive to the project, and I consider content building to be a huge part of the qualification for being as Admin. Most of the opposes below boil down to a difference in the interpretation of guidelines. All of our policies and guidelines are obviously subject to interpretation, and different opinions should be valued when brought to the discussion. I do not see how giving Silver seren the mop could possibly be detrimental to the project, so gladly give my support. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support huge net positive Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Concerned about so-called "inclusionism", but I like your response to the IAR question. Support. StrPby (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support User has my support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC) move to neutral -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting !vote per more recent !vote below. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Support - I think that Silver seren is doing a great job in improving articles as well as in AFD. I see a limited number of reverts. However the editor appears to know how to warn users. --Alpha Quadrant talk 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good answers to a lot of difficult questions. Good nomination statements. —Soap— 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - The opposes below caused a few doubts in me, but Silver seren knows these problems now and will keep to parts s/he is confident in. In the end, the editor has shown experience to not abuse the tools. Derild4921☼ 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Very productive editor with experience in a lot of areas of the project. Cordial and honest. Could use the mop in WP:REFUND and related areas. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A net benefit in my opinion. Switched from neutral so mores down there. But I think Silver's well intentioned and would be dedicated. Plus one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support – A content contributor who from my experience seems to understand subtleties of policy. Lambanog (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support An article improver and content creator who is a net benefit to the project. I think it troubling that so many who oppose feel that someone so willing to work to make Wikipedia a better place for the readers refer to a content creator/improver as "inclusionist" as if it were a dirty word. I believe he would properly and fairly enforce all policies and guidelines in using the mop, and would not let a personal opinion deter him from those duties. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I have interacted with this user and found them to be friendly and very approachable. Silverseren noticed that the article that I had nominated for deletion should be kept and they were right. I had wrongly jumped to conclusions that a therapy was advertising when it was legitamate. I have considered the opposes below and think the problems raised are not serious enough to oppose. People seem to be focusing on imperfections rather than the net positive attributes to this candidate. An inclusionist is less likely to damage the encyclopedia as they are less likely to delete, so don't see this as a reason for opposing but others below may disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. being nominated by a sysop who has a well studded belt of FA stars, and the positive voting from other aédmins, confirms that I am not wrong in lending my support too. --Kudpung (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak Support: Article rescue experience is invaluable but has issues to work out before his RfA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support: Its too bad this looks like it won't be a successful nomination right now, because Silver really does some good work. He's no more perfect than deletionist-minded admins who get overturned from time to time--both have their hearts in the right place -- a dedication to improving the project. We need more people like that.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that you appear to be assuming that SS might close AfDs in line with his "inclusionism" - which would actually be a reason to oppose. I quite admit to having deletionist tendencies, but I've closed hundreds of AfDs and only been overturned once (maybe twice - I'm not sure) and I've even had "Keep" closes taken to DRV as well. Any admin that lets their own personal preferences dictate how they close AfDs would not be an admin for very long. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I don't assume that would happen, I think he does know how to follow policy. Your own experience helps prove that the vast majority of AfD closes are not really that contentious.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Reasonable editor that would make a good admin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Wonderful editor who has worked at improving many articles. Dream Focus 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Have witnessed a preponderance of evidence that tells me this editor does not have the right kind of judgment to be an effective administrator.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a vague comment, perhaps you can be more specific? -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, his effort at "rescuing" this article (my first encounter with him) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) displayed some stunning deficits, most importantly the ability to evaluate individual sources, their reliability and independence, and a lack of thought into why something is being rescued. That alone was sufficient to convince me he doesn't have the tools to sort the wheat from the chaff and would likely cause problems if he sought to wade into fraught areas with an admin hat on. If you'd like, I could be more specific. But I'm trying to be kind these days, so will only do so if prompted again.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based on my interactions on [3]. Does not seem to recognise WP:V or WP:RS for my taste. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus reached at the end of that AfD was Delete and I submitted to and accepted community consensus. In retrospect, it's clear that I should have taken the sourcing issue to WP:RSN for outside viewpoints and that is certainly something I shall do in the future. SilverserenC 05:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You still don't understand. In retrospect, it should have been automatically clear to you that a statement like "predicting will become the most successful interracial sex movie ever" does not verify that it has been the most successful or that it was described as such, regardless of the reliability of the source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do this reluctantly, because I've got the utmost respect for people that ensure that articles that are notable are saved. But the likes of WP:PORNBIO and WP:NFOOTBALL are not alternatives to the GNG, they merely help people evaluate at a glance whether someone is likely to meet the GNG. From what I've seen of your contributions I have doubts over whether you have fully grasped this. —WFC— 07:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, but a number of things don't allow me to Support at this time. Firstly, you acknowledge at length your past problems with conflict, and end by saying that it is still a problem, citing a recent example. The disclosure is admirable, but since, in your own opinion, you have not conquered the problem yet, it might be advisable to wait at least until you are confident yourself about it. Nobody is perfect, but the ability not to become emotionally aroused as an admin seems paramount to me. Secondly, you have about the same level of contributions as I do, many from a good while ago, and I would oppose myself for lack of experience :=) I am also concerned about the general impression I got from reading the first userspace essay linked in the question above. I am assuming you still stand by it, since you edited it at the same time as you removed the ((User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator)) userbox from your User Page just before posting this RFA. As above, I also feel that, while the work you have done rescuing articles is admirable, you seem to veer close to the edge, or even over it, on policies such as notability quite often. As I said, I'm sorry, I don't like to oppose RFAs, but in this case I have too many concerns to be able to Support.  Begoon•talk 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify a little, based on your new answers above. Probably the most concerning statement for me in that essay was "But I feel so often that i'm up against a wall I cannot pass, a wall of rules, legislation, bad faith, and vandals. And it's a wall I don't know how to deal with." All of those things are things you will need to deal with as an admin. What concerns me is that I fear you have, until now, tended to deal with it sometimes by pushing the limits almost to breaking point when you disagree with a policy, when the real way to do this is to argue for change in the policy. I am also a little concerned that you only chose to make the edit to that essay, and your user page, concerning never wishing to be an admin immediately before accepting this nomination, along with an edit saying you had "better do it so as not to look like a hypocrite" on Cirt's talk page. I'm afraid that had the opposite effect with me. It's not the biggest part of my oppose, that would be the self expressed opinion that you haven't yet managed to deal with emotions leading you to unnecessarily be involved in conflict, and the worry that you err on the interpretation of policy in favour of article retention too much. I'm not trying to "get on your case" with this clarification, but I felt it necessary after your answers. I honestly think that these concerns would probably not exist for me in a few months, but right now, they are enough for me not to support.  Begoon•talk 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose (ec)- Sorry, but what little I have seen of you has not impressed me. I have seen you canvass for keep votes ([4], [5]), attempt to pass off paid advertisements as proper sources here and generally fail to distinguish between reliable coverage and insubstantial fluff. I do not trust your judgment enough to support at this time. Reyk YO! 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree those examples show the candidate wasn't ready in March, but that is six months ago. Do you have any recent examples that would indicate the candidate might not be ready now? ϢereSpielChequers 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The one Mktiverata mentioned below is a good example. I had intended to mention that one myself, but I'd forgotten the title of the AfD. Reyk YO! 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Overly keen on preventing articles being deleted, at the expense of proper sourcing. Epbr123 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Disdain for Wikipedia's rules structure reflected in the How I Feel essay + admitted emotionality about the project + vested time and interest in inclusionism = red flags abundant. Townlake (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Realistically, if hes emotionally involved but has the good character not to let his emotions cause incivility or other uncollaborative conduct, that's a most valuable quality for a project member. Passion is a good thing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, passion is great, but SS specifically refers to it in the context of causing maybe unnecessary conflict. As an admin he is bound to be exposed to more potentially tense situations - so that's why I listed it as one of my concerns. I felt it might be wise to wait until he, himself, was no longer concerned about it.  Begoon•talk 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Editor is clearly a net benefit to the project, but I fear making the editor an admin would detract rather than add to the value the editor contributes. The links above (especially the ones in the past year) convince me that, however polite and friendly, he has very strong opinions and disregard for the rules when it comes to AfDs, and should not be given the power to close them. RayTalk 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regular editors already have the power to close AfD, the extra AfD related power an admin has is to delete, no reason to think an inclusionist is more likely to abuse the delete button. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a valid point, and he certainly wouldn't be closing discussions he'd participated in, which lessens my concern. I don't think anyone believes he would abuse the delete button - just that his policy understanding and interpretations, as demonstrated by some of the diffed rationales, may not be quite up to scratch yet. He does seem to be improving gradually - so maybe that won't concern as many people next time.  Begoon•talk 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sad oppose. You're a great contributor, but I'm afraid that, given Begoon, Reyk and Townlake's opposes, I'd feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, when it comes to AFDs; I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - per "This is the greatest reason why I believe the project will fail." I'd rather not have someone be made an admin if they think the project will fail.--Rockfang (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It ends with "With all of these problems with the project, I truly do not know if it has a chance of being successful. To me, it appears that it is not only being driven down from without, but also from within. When both sides meet, the project will crumble.
      But, for all of my fears, I still believe in the project. And, until the day comes that the failure is officially announced, I will continue to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, in the hope that my small contribution will be able to make some sort of dent in the oncoming wave. I have hopes that I am wrong. But my hopes are small." I too think there is a non-trivial chance Wikipedia will fail. But the desire to keep it from doing so is admirable. That essay scares me away from support a bit, but I think the quote you selected needs a bit more context. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I'm not going to oppose over what rethorical devices the candidate uses in a userspace essay (frankly, I think the people who get worked up over this sorta stuff are the same ones who think that Swift eats babies). But the concerns raised by Reyk, Epbr123, and Townlake ring true with me. When a group of people cannot have their thoughts challenged without calling it "abuse" (JClemens, support #3), I become quite reluctant to entrust one of their number with the tools, for concern that no matter how well-intentioned, said person may end up becoming little more than a "sockpuppet" (in the classic, off-wiki sense!) for their views - I can imagine a situation where S. is torn between either doing what administrators should be doing or doing what his friends want him to be doing, a recipe for intense drama (as I'm sure some supporters will be the first to attest to). Badger Drink (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing this candidate because I said that sometimes people who rescue articles are abused by those who oppose their improvement efforts? That's pretty petty, lame, and doesn't logically follow. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in this "oppose" camp, but I'm forced to agree that opposition because of what a supporter said is pretty odd.  Begoon•talk 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you (or Begoon) please direct me to the point in which I said "I am opposing because JClemens said ___"? It seems to be not showing up in Opera. I understand that lines of reasoning that aren't copy-pastes of WP:THIS or WP:THAT or some form of "fails USER:ESSAY" can be very difficult to follow, but I'm sure my reasoning could not possibly be interpreted as something so completely retarded - perhaps this is a rendering issue with whatever browser you're currently using? Badger Drink (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has to do with the statement, "When a group of people cannot have their thoughts challenged without calling it "abuse" (JClemens, support #3), I become quite reluctant to entrust one of their number with the tools, for concern that no matter how well-intentioned, said person may end up becoming little more than a "sockpuppet"". SilverserenC 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was it.  Begoon•talk 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "when people display hysterical personalities, and a person has friendly ties with said people, I worry that aforementioned person may find themselves torn between their duties in a certain position and the desires of aforementioned histrionic friends" in any way remotely similar to your mischaracterization of my statement? That's some pretty goddamn lousy lossy compression on your central reading unit. I guess if that's how we're reading, I might as well register a strong complaint with your statement that I'm odd, and inform JClemens that I was not abused. Badger Drink (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Badger Drink, how can you tell from someone's contributions here whether they warrant a clinical diagnosis as hysterical personality, or even a more impressionistic application of the term hysterical? Of the people I know here well enough to know what they are like in RL as well as WP, there is often no connection: some show much more conventionally approved behavior in RL, some are much more sensible in Wikipedia, free of whatever may be their RL problems. I hope you meant that phrase to apply to excessive behavior at Wikipedia, but the term would normally be considered to have RL application in a strongly negative sense. An oppose statement in these terms is prejudicial. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm very sorry. SS is one of the most pleasant editors I have come across on the project. I'm not opposing because SS is an inclusionist per se - I've supported equally firm inclusionists in the past. But AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) indicate that there remain issues with recognising reliable sources (SS proposed, amongst other things, a wikipedia mirror as a source). On the other hand, I also recognise that these issues have, to some extent, subsided over time (ie since Reyk's example, which came at a time that SS was throwing just about anything at an article). This diff is recent evidence indicating that SS would employ raw headcounting in closing an AfD, which is of course concerning: headcounting is a technique that invariably results in inclusion. The article rescue experience is invaluable, but article rescue just isn't something related to administratorship so it has to carry less weight than my aforementioned concerns. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose A candidate for RfA should not have a userpage declaring he is on a wikibreak. I also do not trust the judgment of the nominator. Keepscases (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trusting my judgement isn't a reason to oppose a candidate, and can you explain how you don't trust my judgement, I know you opposed my RFA, but now that I'm no longer in RFA, you have to give a reason why, so I could improve for my future RFA. Secret account 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "so I could improve for my future RFA." Jorge, I would urge, no, implore, you to stop putting yourself through this. But that is a discussion for another day, and RFA, it would seem. In the meantime, I am certainly not opposed to this RfA because of the nominator. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed it on his talk page, it's frustrating that comments attacking me is still around. Secret account 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. But that's life on the web, as you well know. Best of luck with your studies and things in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with judgement. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose With his low standards in regards to notability, I cannot support this candidate becoming an administrator. He has also indicated that he wants to work in deletion areas, though not AfD, and I simply do not trust his judgment enough for him to be making those kinds of calls. AniMate 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, I disagree with his low standards of notability being a hard-core deletionist, but I placed a nomination for him because at least he tries rescuing articles (even if the sources are a bit iffy), and he clearly won't abuse the tools. I prefer inclusionists than deletionists in RFA anytime because they are more careful with the delete button. There's quite a few inclusionists (like DGG) whose notability standards I disagree with, but they are excellent adminstrators. Secret account 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I don't see how someone who you admit isn't that great at sourcing an article can competently evaluate whether an article should be deleted, since one of the most important parts of closing AfDs is looking at the quality of sources. And for all of this rescuing, he still only has 40% of edits in article space. AniMate 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that I do not plan on being involved in closing any AfD's whatsoever. I would much rather be improving an article and getting others to vote Keep because of my improvements, rather than attempting to determine consensus in an AfD debate. The other things that I mentioned, CfD and others, are much less contentious. SilverserenC 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here's some examples of more recent sourcing on my part. World Vegetable Center (Before and After), Karl Ley (Before and After), Garibaldi (group) (Before and After), Zend Certified Engineer (Before and After), Christl Ruth Vonholdt (Before and After), and Arie Rip (Before and After). SilverserenC 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Hipocrite, Reyk and Epbr123 - concerns of excessive inclusionism. Admins with deletionist/inclusionist tendencies generally don't make very good admins, nor have very good judgement. Editors should look at each article without a prejudice, and admins especially should. Aiken (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. The user space essay does not inspire me with faith in the candidate. Esteffect (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, regretfully, at this time. Principally for the persuasive cases made by Reyk and Mkativerata. Too many such issues, too recently, for my mind, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, with regret. Participation in the "Article Rescue Squadron" and associated canvassing shows a well-intentioned editor, but one with questionable judgement in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    So...as long as i'm a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, it's impossible for me to get a Support from you? SilverserenC 00:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The canvassing was six months ago to be fair. Secret account 00:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose "Admins are one of the greatest sources of destruction of the project. They are not helpful, not instructive, not wanting to assume good faith. They kick new users, revert everything they do because they did it wrong, even though they're still learning." This was your view right up until the moment someone offered to nominate you. --Stephen 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have edited that essay long before I did anyways, because I never meant to insinuate that I was speaking about all admins in that section. That would mean that I was speaking badly about people like Moonriddengirl and Cirt, which I would never, ever do. The way I have refactored that section consists more with my viewpoint on the matter and I apologize that what it was before was unclear (and, I agree, slightly offensive). SilverserenC 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Userpage essay and anti-admin userbox plus the discussion linked to above mean I must regretfully oppose Jebus989✰ 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose A rather sad oppose but I find several of the earlier opposes compelling. Some of your attempted article rescues stretch notability and sourcing beyond the limits. Polargeo (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Stephen. Do not trust at this time. Vodello (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I'm sorry, but all the red flags I see all are in the category of judgement. Your low standards of notability also is a red flag here. I'm sorry. MJ94 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Looking at the Energon and Monica Foster AfDs mentioned above in Oppose 1 & 2, Silverseren seems to be concerned with saving articles simply to save them (that is, that saving articles is, in and of itself, our main goal, rather than the goal of improving the encyclopedia). I am happy with the existence of such editors, as their zeal can be a great force for preserving and improving that which others don't care to, but I am worried about giving an editor with such a goal the admin tools, as there are numerous admin functions (blocking, non-obvious AfD closures, etc.) where an admin must have a more nuanced approach. When added to the personal essay, I'm worried that Silverseren focuses on an overly simplistic interpretation of "the greatest source of human knowledge," without looking at that catchphrase through the lens of policy, guidelines, and community consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per MJ94 --> it's all about red flags in the category of judgement--Hokeman (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. In this recent AfD the candidate shows a lack of understanding of policy and guidelines. PhilKnight (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose No Thanks, we don't need admins with as an extreme view of deletion as this user. I'm generally disappointed with the poor understanding of policy shown in AFD contributions. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per numerous concerns raised above me. One two three... 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Too many concerns, sorry. T. Canens (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose SS, I have had past encounters with you and I belive that you have this project's best interests at heart. However there are simply too many red flags that would prevent me from supporting. On a side note: If I recall correctly, you said that you would not ever want to be an admin and yet I see you here at RFA.... This perplexes me the most yet it is not a reason for my opposition. Come back in a few months and I'm sure that RFA number 2 would be much better :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Regretful Oppose, but with strong moral support. I found this one hard to decide, but what swung it was "I am hoping that I will eventually get to the point where I will be able to explain my point or my side in an issue, but I will be able to keep myself completely calm, no matter the arguments that come my way, and will be able to also calmly respond to those arguments. I'm still a bit too emotional, but it is something I will continue to work on." I really think you have to reach that point before becoming an admin - admins can potentially get a lot more abuse than the rest of us, and I think being able to approach things in a detached and unemotional manner is essential, and if you're finding it hard to stay calm as an editor, I really don't think you're ready for admin yet. But that's my only reason for not supporting - if you work on it, and try again when you're sure you can approach things calmly and can show a clean stretch with no unnecessary emotion, I'll be delighted to support you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak oppose. Your 'best work' includes expanding small stubs into larger stubs. Your best article is a "B" class article, which in itself isn't bad, but when a nominee mentions article creation as their best contribution to the encyclopedia, I look for at least one good article. While your contributions look good otherwise, I'm going to have to oppose. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak oppose - Your weak arguements on Transformers ADF's don't convince me you would be a good adminstrator. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose for the many reasons above; in particular, for his canvassing in blatant violation of WP:CANVASS, his apparent view of AFD as a headcount or a battle to be won, and his self-admitted difficulty in having a calm discussion without descending into angry argument. I do see signs of improvement in recent months, but not enough to convince me; at present, I do not think this user has the judgement or policy knowledge required to be an admin. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak oppose. Per the above reasons. Concern about canvassing mentioned above. Would be very open to a reapplication in the future. Saebvn (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose As someone on the deletionist side, I don't have a problem with those of the opposite view being admins (indeed I even nominated one), but even given the ARS/canvassing-related stuff - and to be fair even on that point he is one of the ARS members that actually tries to rescue articles rather than just voting Keep on them - I can't honestly support this editor given this edit which just raises so many flags about misunderstanding the idea of judging consensus, which is something sysops have to do all the time even if you don't go anywhere near AfD. Sorry. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak Oppose Just haven't seen enough yet. You'll get there eventually.Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - Per the above. If you are an inclusionist then create some content or make bad articles into acceptable ones; I like that inclusionism; but I don't want a philosophy that suports a proxy war of numbers on new articles. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created content, as listed above in the questions. And I don't understand what you mean by "proxy war of numbers"? SilverserenC 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose XfDs would be fine, but the editor edits in "clumps" on articles - up to 25 or more in rapid order, all of which are minor, making it hard to determine actual material edits. My big problem is BLPs, where I find the examples in the edit history to be of very uneven sourcing quality. ARS, in my opinion, is a poor reason for opposing - the folks there, by and large, are sincere about improving the project, and an asset to WP. Collect (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at my response to Animate above, you can see my recent attempts at sourcing that should better illustrate what you are looking for. SilverserenC 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Rescuing articles is just fine with me, and I applaud you (and the ARS) for that work. But the essay, with such exclamations as "Do we not want the truth on Wikipedia?", displays a fundamental disagreement with the basic set-up of the system: verifiability, not truth. I have no major problem with regular editors saying that, but for administrators I'd like to see more adherence to some of our tenets. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I not been adhering to the tenets? Let me explain what I meant by that part of the essay. I completely agree with verifiability and especially with soucing. I was not advocating no sourcing for articles. However, the issues I have, mainly with BLP's, is that most of the information that secondary sources get about their subjects come from the subjects. So, if we don't trust the word of the subjects, which would be primary sources, I suppose, then why do we trust the word of secondary sources that are just quoting or reiterating information that the subjects told them? It seems contradictory to me. SilverserenC 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Neutral per Talk:Billy Connolly#Spam fritters?. It's my only dealing with him, as far as I'm aware. He came across as slightly lacking in clue; not in a really harmful or untrustworthy way, just not admin material for me yet. Sorry. --John (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Just read User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project for the first time. Moving to Oppose. --John (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I ask for your reason? SilverserenC 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the admin-bashing in the section that starts with "Those...". While admins are not perfect, I feel this essay exemplifies an oversimplification of the problem. In general, I dislike any solution that starts by saying "it's all such-and-such's fault". --John (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sorry, I'm not comfortable with supporting someone with such extreme views about article sourcing. I'm also not very fond of the personal attacks posted in your essay about User:Ryulong (which you only refactored after the concern was raised on your talkpage, and even then only removed the name of the editor). Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - Fails to understand the purpose of third-party sourcing and seems to be too open with what sources are considered reliable. I agree with his user essay opinion that some people are grabbing for power rather than taking up the tools for the betterment of the project, however I don't like the doom-and-gloom failure is almost inevitable vibe. I also recognize some of his AfD work and I don't think he is neutral enough in the inclusion/deletion philosophy for me to feel comfortable letting him close AfD's. I'm sure he's a good contributor, but cannot support giving him the tools at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral per Talk:Billy Connolly#Spam fritters?. It's my only dealing with him, as far as I'm aware. He came across as slightly lacking in clue; not in a really harmful or untrustworthy way, just not admin material for me yet. Sorry. --John (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Just read User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project for the first time. Moving to Oppose. --John (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Some of the issues raised above make me suspect this editor isn't quite ready yet, though I think most are being blown out of proportion. Not noticing a site is a Wikipedia mirror when adding it to an article is certainly a problem, but not enough to oppose on (for example), at least in my opinion. But there are enough different issues including the user space essay which implies a bit too much of a battleground mentality for me to be comfortable. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I would have supported, based on how I have seen him at AfD, but the opposes have given me a lot to think about. The userspace essay doesn't help either. Nolelover 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Too hard to decide in this case. --Leyo 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I'm really torn here. I see a great and enthusiastic contributor, and I really do admire the honesty shown, especially in Q3. But on the other hand, I see someone who seems to have had trouble keeping emotion in check on a number of occasions, and perhaps being a bit too inclusionist and having problems with notability, as several examples have shown. I'm really not sure - I'll sit here awhile and await further answers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I have to move to oppose at this time, with great regret -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moved to support - The editor appears to be doing a great job writing and in AFD discussions. However, what concerns me is the candidate has limited experience dealing with vandalism. As the administrator tools are primarily for dealing with vandals and maintenance tasks, I believe that a editor needs at least some experience with warning vandals before becoming a admin. I have no doubt that Silver seren will do a excellent job in maintenance tasks. But because all administrators will likely have to deal with a vandal one time or another, I am reluctant to support. However since the candidate is knowable of AFD and related policy I can't say that I oppose. --Alpha Quadrant talk 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I point out that I have actually reverted a good deal of vandalism and warned the vandals? I would have never gotten the Rollback tool otherwise. Examples: [6], [7], [8], [9]. SilverserenC 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Silver seren did not add themselves to the WP:RFA, which may indicate lack of confidence, or overenthusiasm by nominators, however I do want to encourage those that like to include material in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides not self-nominating myself, is there any activities or areas that I need to work on to make your vote a Support the next time I run? SilverserenC 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is going to need more work on my part, I would check that a variety of functions have been used, at least upload and move. I would check the deleted content to see if there was a problem with your work being deleted, and check that deletion nomination reasons were valid. Helping people could be demonstrated by doing some work at WP:FFU which is pretty backlogged at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral – I do agree with a couple of Silver seren's views, personally, and I know he's got his heart in the right place, but a few of the opposes do justifiably bring up some red flags. –MuZemike 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This won't pass. And I wanted to support (thoughtful answer to Q4, and User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project is actually quite interesting to read), but I'm not sure yet. Your dedication is excellent, even if you have doubts on the project's success. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Agree with MuZemike. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NeutralMoving to support Tough one. Im a bit torn, I remember seeing the name and my spidey sense says that it was a good interaction , but i need to verify what that was. But regardless of that, that would be subjective to my own interaction and wouldnt have much weight i dont think. Theres a long history here, and passion. But theres some concerns raised. I personally dont think an essay is the end of the world if its to describe an opinion or illustrate potential frustrations, Silver isnt forcing people to read it, it merely gives an indication of who they are, a lil window. People may or may not agree with it. Im leaning support on this one, but id like to do a bit more evaluation before a final decision. Ottawa4ever(talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to support, net benefit to the project and passionate. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tentative oppose per User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project, convince me you are part of the solution to ARS, as opposed to part of the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, they did. I don't typically support RFA candidates who I can't personally vouch for, so neutral without reservations. Best of luck! Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope my answers to the optional questions meet your expectations. SilverserenC 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral but really Moral Support. I think it unlikely that this RfA will pass, but I want to encourage you to learn from the feedback here, stick with this project, and try again in the future. My heart goes out to you for your answer to Q8. I've interacted with this editor a lot in the aftermath of the most recent AfD for Criticism of Judaism. SS was civil and clueful in the face of some very obnoxious comments from others; see for example Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 8#Progress on consensus-building. I hope that editors will look at that thread, and recognize that this editor has a lot of potential for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Quite well said too... Hobit (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I can't support but I can't oppose, keep up the good work! --Addihockey10 19:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I recently met Silver seren at (where else?) an AfD discussion. He was thoughtful and civil there, but did identify a number of sources that were plainly not reliable sources that he apparently rapidly searched up on Google without evaluation. Because most of the articles on my watch list are articles that have been marred by POV-pushers (as stated in the findings of a recent Arbitration Committee case, I'm acutely aware of the importance of Wikipedia verifiability policy for the integrity of Wikipedia. Sources shouldn't just be kind-of, sort-of reliable sources, but plainly reliable sources. The candidate's forthrightness in admitting disputes with other users is commendable, but of course this kind of dispute while not holding the mop doesn't bode well for wielding the mop dispassionately. As a non-administrator, I figure one of the most important qualities in an administrator is keeping cool when trouble-makers start pressing buttons. (I have had moderator or sysop powers on various other online forums since 1993.) The candidate has some good qualities, but is somewhat reluctant about accepting the nomination, and my advice would be to wait, become well established in the scholarly community of college, and try RfA again after more maturity and seasoning. Best wishes for successful, challenging studies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral sorry while being on a wikibreak at the start of an RfA might not seem like much it does not allow me to support at this time. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi RP459, you've already supported. PhilKnight (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that everyone, I did not strike out my support above when I moved here. I have fixed it now. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, me accidentally still having the Wikibreak tag on my userpage means you won't support? SilverserenC 23:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One man's "accidental" is another man's "not particularly detail oriented, is he. Hmmm."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Well he's a long-time contributor, but there has been inactive seasons as well. This one is just too hard to decide. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral - The essay and the ARS membership seals the deal for me, but I do strongly support requiring registration to edit as well, so that tips it into neutral. Barely. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to be really getting the vibe from people that just being in the ARS is bad. Should I quit or what? SilverserenC 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's upto you of course. I don't want to give the impression that dropping out would be a vote-changer on my part. I'm concerned about what appears to be a "keep everything" approach to borderline articles. I didn't participate in that particular example above, but I did in dozens of other related Transformers articles, and it was a bit dismaying to see a rote litany of "keeps" from the ARS (either in name or in spirit) types...though you did try to find sources which was a big step-up from the others, though they turned out to be not-so-good. Having someone with that approach being able to close XfDs is something I'm not comfortable with. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral per Fetchcomms. I would like to support, but I'm not comfortable doing so with the opposing reasons. Sorry. :pepper 20:20, 5 October 2010 (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.
Category