Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Silence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Silence

[edit]

Final (95/0/1) ended 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence (talk · contribs) – I met Silence in November 2005 at Talk:Victor Hugo. Neither of us was particularly interested in editing the article ourselves, but the process of helping a couple of enthusiastic newcomers was an enlightening experience for both of us. I found that Silence was a very helpful user who worked well with others on talk pages and responded well to criticism. His attitude is exactly what I look for in an administrator. He has an amusing sense of humor, but he doesn't let jokes get in the way of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. He is bold, he is resilient, and he is dedicated to the project. He can occasionally be found contributing to the deletion process, and he has done extensive work on repetitive maintainance tasks, such as categorization. There should be no problems with his level of experience, even for those with the highest standards for adminship. He has been around since July 2005 and has accumulated over 9600 edits, including one in the elusive portal talk namespace. [1] He has contributed to featured-article discussions, article improvement drives, collaborations of the week and countless other community projects. I'm confident that he can be trusted to use the sysop tools wisely. And even though he doesn't like country music, it is my honor to nominate him for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 03:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. -Silence 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. ---TantalumTelluride 03:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. DarthVader 13:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, even though he disagrees with my awesome proposal =). Impressive maturity on the Sam Spade RFC, and valuable contributions. Gotta fix that country music thing though. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support ForestH2
  5. Support --Terence Ong 14:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Genuinely shocking cliche moment for me -- if I'd realized, I would have offered to nominate! Xoloz 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. An experienced editor who knows the project well. Zaxem 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support — Brendenhull (T + C) at 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -Jflash 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Glad you waited until I was back from wiki-break. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--digital_me(t/c) 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support Very patient user who explains his decisions in detail. Not trigger happy at all. As a mediator in the Sam Spade RfC he showed how effective he could be as a voice of reason and a calming force. We need more like Silence. David D. (Talk) 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, happily - just my kind of candidate! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, per nomination. --Mhking 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rfa cliché #1 and, judging by the names currently on the list, this won't be my only cliché support today. RadioKirk talk to me 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support offering my non-cliched support as I haven't run across Silence before, but on reviewing the contribution list, this is an obvious "yes". Gwernol 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yep, no problems there. MaxSem 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Tons of good edits and civil talking. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Very impressed by Silence's handling of the dipute at Talk:Vestigial structure. Good user.--SomeStranger (T | C) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A very experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per the many positives of this candidacy. The one negative for me is a potentially insufficient community interaction, reflected in the kinda low level of User talk edits. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience is that he interacts with the community of the article talk pages. I believe this is actually preferable. David D. (Talk) 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Per all above. I too have had good experiences with Silence. Go gett'em tiger. -Mysekurity [m!] 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, no problem here. --Tone 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support. I feel proud to even be permitted to sign my name on the support section to make Silence an admin. D. G. 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Experienced and interacts well with the community -- Samir धर्म 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support A good man. Shocked, shocked am I that I failed to nominate the man myself. On the same subject, I like staplers. Snoutwood (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Has left a good impression on a few encounters, and is being supported by other people I trust. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Qualified and experienced. Kalani [talk] 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: Already cleaning messes, needs a bucket to put them in. Geogre 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: I don't think I ever expressed my appreciation to Silence for stepping up to help push Rosa Parks through FAC. Thanks. Looking back through this user's calm and knowledgeable posts to Talk:Rosa Parks, I have no concerns about his suitability for adminship. - BT 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 04:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Merovingian {T C @} 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Conscious 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. "Silent" support; no serious concerns after a thorough check. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support—not because I have any issues; I just don't know much about Silence (pun maybe intended [edit conflict—I came up with it first =p]) and so don't have a compelling reason to emphatically support. Ardric47 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. User is active in the project space and, from all interactions that I've seen, civil. — TKD::Talk 07:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – Gurch 11:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- user talk pages show level-headed discussion and a willingness to help out wherever necessary. The sounds of Silence are nice and civil. --Elkman 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support with bells on -- recently encountered User's calm and effective methods. Skittle 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Wanted to leave this vote totally blank for the humour but that wouldn't work. Ah well! Sssshhhh.... (there I got my humour in) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per the stapler pic — ßottesiηi (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support The King of Kings 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support RFA cliche 3 --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oh, I can't believe I missed this nomination. I actually wanted to nominate Silence myself, but he seemed to think this nomination would fail and I'd have a chance... the man is modest. Anyway, Silence comes with my highest recommendation and I believe he will be invaluable to the continued development of Wikipedia. Most strong support. Andre (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A great user! Mr. Turcottetalk 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I like his style. Humour and integrity are necessary qualities in an admin. I think he has both. --Guinnog 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per your good qualities. Thetruthbelow 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, enthusiastically. Good work, good personal style, good writing, good answers to questions below. Good good good! --Allen 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Kafziel 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Are you kidding me? Just have a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles for an example of his great work. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support It'll be nice to have someone to knows policy and won't abuse it. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. This person will make a good administrator. Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy (roger that) 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Silent Support Werdna (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Saravask 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. A very friendly user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. SUPPORT!!!!! RN 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Looks fine to me.--MONGO 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Piling On Support seems to have every credential for moppery. MLA 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Joe I 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Yes. Misza13 T C 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Tony Sidaway 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Silence and I seldom see eye to eye but he has proven himself an innovative thinker. We need more people like this.[reply]
  69. Support Excellent bed-side manner. Shell babelfish 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Deserved. -- Szvest 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  71. Support I would like to nominate this user as administrator because this user demonstrates good behaviour, and edits good articles. '''*Daniel*''' 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Hate to pile on, but he certainly deserves my support per most above. Yes please. Rockpocket 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 10,000 + edits he deserves to be an admin.Jordy 11:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, worthy of adminship. DVD+ R/W 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Great and experienced editor; friendly and civil. --Zoz (t) 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support It'll sound strange, but the way Silence handled the lone oppose persuaded me to vote. You've got to like having someone as an admin who understands the importance of "little things." ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Outstanding and helpful contributions, very well-balanced editor, has both quality and quantity on their side. Nothing wrong here. Grandmasterka 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support my observations of this is editor are positive.--cj | talk 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Adfirmo - I actually did think he was one already. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support From what I've seen, Silence is exactly the sort of person who should be an administrator. His contributions have been uniformly constructive in nature, he is always civil and helpful, and goes by Wikipedia policy. I have no worries about him ever abusing admin powers. Kasreyn 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  83. Support - with pleasure. -- Avenue 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support.  Grue  11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I thought I already voted Support. Roy A.A. 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. SushiGeek 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support enthusiastically. Erudite editor, great guy. Herostratus 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. A truly qualified admin candidate. (Nice thesaurus work, Herostratus, by the way.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. I don't know many people who put as much time into the project. Comic 06:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per his opinion on pie. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support —Scott5114↗ 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per the usual cliches. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. *drew 08:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose E-mail not activated. Activate e-mail and I will decide again. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bizarre reason to oppose someone, is it not? --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I think most people these days expect admins to have an active e-mail, and that's a pretty reasonable and simple expectation. -Silence 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, I thought I'd activated my e-mail back in early March. I must have screwed up my preferences somewhere along the line. Thanks for pointing that out. -Silence 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the whole e-mail validation thing? Snoutwood (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very important that admins have their email activated in case a block needs to be contested. Werdna (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I authenticated my email on March 9, on request. I must have either forgotten to enable it somehow, or accidentally un-enabled it at some point. Either way, I'm glad it's working now. -Silence 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

Neutral until I learn what this comment means: [2]. Ardric47 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like that nefarious scoundrel User:TantalumTelluride is up to his old mischief again. Alack! He's fooled the lot of us. ;3 -Silence 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, Silence, they've discovered our sinister plot to take over the Wikimedia Foundation. We must resort to Plan B. --TantalumTelluride 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's really nothing to worry about. I was merely joking. --TantalumTelluride 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak support (see above). Ardric47 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Knows Latin quite well but doesn't have any templates signifying ability to communicate an a non-native living language. :-|Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Silence.com.au 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. I don't have any such templates because I don't competently know any living languages other than English. It would be dishonest of me to have such a template, even if, as a sidenote, I can use dictionaries and online translators for very rudimentary and basic translations such as those I've used on the German, Spanish, French, etc. Wikipedias—mainly for InterWiki purposes. Although I've taken some classes on a few living languages, such as Spanish, Arabic and particularly Greek, I don't consider my own ability in those languages sufficient to meet the minimum requirements for a Babel-1 template: "basic ability - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language". As such, I feel it would be misleadingly inflating my own foreign-language abilities to use more Babel templates. -Silence 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username               Silence
Total edits            9603
Distinct pages edited  5037
Average edits/page     1.906
First edit             06:19, 12 July 2004
 
(main)          2773
Talk            1460
User            827
User talk       170
Image           13
Image talk      2
Template        1010
Template talk   149
Category        1266
Category talk   60
Wikipedia       1599
Wikipedia talk  273
Portal talk     1

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Although I can't anticipate everything I'll end up doing—I tend to dabble in a variety of different things, as the need arises—I expect to primarily assist with organizational issues such as article, category, and disambiguation page-moves, along with reverting vandalism and helping out with backlogs. I've been an admin on a (humor-based) MediaWiki site very similar to this one since December 2004, so I have experience with some of the admin tools, and look forward to helping people out with whatever they need that I'm able to assist with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Mostly, I suppose I'm pleased by pages which I've majorly reorganized in the hopes of improving accessibility and consistency, like the List of Latin phrases pages (before) and various articles I've copyedited. I've also found it very satisfying to contribute new information to Wikipedia on occasion, such as on Capitoline Triad (before). There's still lots of work to be done on all the pages I'm pleased with, though.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I've been in conflicts in the past, and editors have caused me stress. In my early days on Wikipedia, I think I was too willing to be goaded into arguments by insults. Since then, I've learned not to waste time on petty fighting; nowadays I mostly either avoid or try to cleanly resolve (such as with outside intervention) any disputes I come upon, and I'm not so concerned with trying to defend my reputation or honor or any silliness like that. Life's too short, and too full of candy. The most recent major conflict I've been involved with was the RfC on Sam Spade, where I tried to avoid vilifying any party and sought instead to mediate a peaceful resolution, though I think I largely failed in the latter. I hope to continue to improve my diplomacy and people-skills in the future, so as to make the process of collaborating on this odd little encyclopedia thingy a smoother and more productive ride. Good luck to me.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: That's a somewhat vague question; obviously, if an admin does break an important rule, the punishment would depend on the nature and severity of the infraction. However, not all potentially valid administrator actions are explicitly listed in policy; this is because a written set of rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every single specific instance that may arise. Significantly, something not being explicitly covered in policy is not necessarily the same as something going against policy, and it is often more important to consider the spirit than the letter of a policy. However, while written policy cannot realistically account for every possible situation where admin action may be necessary, administrators are nevertheless expected to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and to use consensus, established procedures, and their personal judgment and common sense (such as it is) to best benefit the encyclopedia. Admins ultimately enforce policy; they do not make it—anymore than all of Wikipedia's users do, that is.

Yes. I give a great questions or answer query for quick response emanating through wonderful way. D. G. 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Do you like pie?
A: Nah... I like a cream-flavored or simple treat, but never pastries. "Delicious" circles generally are "eh", I've realized. They rarely go nicely into the gut.
  1. How will becoming an admin reduce your effectiveness (in quality or/and quantity) at contributing to the main Wikipedia? Why? Or if you allege it won't, explain. What do you intend to do about it?
A: Though adminship carries with it many responsibilities and expectations ("with great power comes great responsibility"?), at its essence, adminship is simply providing users with more technical options. As such, adminship cannot, on its own, decrease anyone's effectiveness at contributing to the encyclopedia (I assume that's what you mean by "main Wikipedia"). It may cause many users to work more on meta-activities, but I don't see how such activities aren't (indirectly) important to contributing to Wikipedia: indeed, they are vital. For myself, I don't expect my adminship to lower my rate of contribution to the encyclopedia; indeed, it may increase it, as, by giving me more things I can help out with, it will contribute to my increasing Wikipedia-addiction and thus cause me to interact with articlespace more often than if I was wasting time on a "life". ;) You know me, DG. When has multitasking ever caused me to do less, overall? If anything, the opposite tends to be the case. However, I appreciate the questions. :) If anyone else has any queries, feel free to send them my way.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Silence&oldid=1147963417"