Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SilkTork

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 25 February 2020 (→‎General comments: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SilkTork

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (35/0/0); Scheduled to end 12:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – It is a rare occasion that we are able to consider the nomination of a new bureaucrat, so I am humbled to be able to nominate SilkTork. SilkTork has been a stable, knowledgeable member of our community for many years - he consistently demonstrates clue and ability to make good judgements and is pushing towards 100k edits with a definite lack of controversy. Personally, I have worked with him on Arbcom twice, where I've found him willing to listen, weigh up arguments and speak his mind, definitely not someone to just follow the crowd. I've also found that he is extremely passionate about this encyclopedia and proud to be part of it.
So, it's not surprising to me that after a call for more bureaucrats, SilkTork would step up. We recently had a very close call on a crat chat, and needed more voices. Our 17 crats, however, were mostly elected a decade ago, 3 have not edited yet this year, 3 of us are stuck on Arbcom (and so may have to recuse en bloc) - simply we need some more crats, last year we lost 5 and only replaced 2. I believe SilkTork would be an excellent choice in this role. WormTT(talk) 09:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for doing this Worm. I accept. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: We have a rough guide that above 75% confirms sufficient community confidence, below 65% indicates insufficient community confidence, and that RfAs falling between these figures is at bureaucrat discretion. If consensus is not clear, even above or below these guide figures, or there is some controversial aspect to the RFA then a 'Crat chat is called. The bureaucrats then give their individual assessment of the consensus in the discussion, and also take consideration of what the other 'Crats are saying. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: I feel it is important when closing a controversial or unclear RfA that the 'Crat or 'Crats closing give a clear and understandable rationale. If an RFA is contentious then people are unsatisfied with a close that gives either no rationale or a poor one, regardless of the outcome. A close that explains the thinking behind the rationale, even if the close is opposite to the one desired, can be accepted by most people as per: "I disagree with the outcome, but I understand the reason for it." SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A: I have closed many difficult or contentious discussions over the years, and twice been a member of ArbCom. People ask me to close discussions, and I think that is because I have a reputation for being honest, fair, and balanced, and that I will listen to objections and engage fully and openly with people. On my talkpage I have had for some years a quote by Barack Obama: "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree", and I try very hard to live up to that. I try to keep up with policy changes, but I am aware that our Wikipedia world is vast and complex, and there are areas where I am not familiar. If I am commenting on something, I will check the relevant policies and guidelines to make sure my understanding is up to date. The more important the discussion, the more carefully I will check the relevant policies and guidelines. None of us know everything. SilkTork (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions by Nosebagbear

4. What is your viewpoint on the usage of trendlines in CRATCHATs - yes, no, certain circumstances etc? If not clear-cut, please feel free to give lots of detail.

A: All aspects of a RfA are worth considering, including how voting patterns may change after new information is brought in. How much weight to put on the trend depends entirely on the circumstances. If the trend's outcome is conjectural I would rather have seen the RfA extended than conjecture one way or another. A convincing steady long term upward or downward trend that has reversed the early trend is worth taking into account, as it's not often that trends go one way, then another, and then back again (though, they can do). A late surge in the opposite direction of the general trend needs to be thought about rather than dismissed, though for me is unlikely to be as convincing as a steady long term trend, unless there were an obvious reason, such as a late discovery of some significant material, such as a totally undisclosed second account that had been making personal attacks. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. What degree do you think a candidate's support % should impact on a CRATCHAT discussion/result, once it's within the discretionary zone?

A: The support % may be an indicator that a chat is needed, though it's the nature of how that percentage was achieved that matters more. A support percentage at the lower end of the zone in a RfA in which negative material had been disclosed late on, and there was 100% trend to oppose with supporters moving to oppose, is unlikely to need a chat, while one at the same % in which opinions have been divided throughout the RfA, and there are plausible views on both sides, is one that is likely to need a chat.
Actually, I just noted you're not asking about the decision to go for a chat, but about the impact on a chat that has already opened. I can't speak for how other 'Crats would treat the support %, I can only speak for how I would approach it, which would be along the same lines as I've just outlined - that it's how the % is reached that matters more than the actual %, but the % has to be borne in mind as it is in itself an indicator of community consensus. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from QEDK
7. Can you give examples of contentious requests for comments you have closed yourself or as part of a panel? You can also give examples of any contentious discussion excepting ArbCom proceedings.
A:I'll give you the last five discussions I have closed. I was asked to close this discussion this morning: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Books_from_Cambridge_University_Press, I was asked to close the Race and intelligence DRV a couple of days ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12. Then it goes back to Nov when I closed some overdue AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-chicken Model, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManuelbastioniLAB. SilkTork (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. If you were a crat assessing Money emoji's RfA, what would your assessment be?
A: Good question. I'll need to give some time to that. SilkTork (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Barkeep49
9. What do you make of the overlap between Arbitrators and Bureaucrats? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: To be clear I am asking about overlap in the composition of the two groups, not responsibilities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Dmehus
10. Related to Barkeep49's question above regarding the apparent overlap between Arbitrators and Bureaucrats, what do you make of the apparent overlap between Stewards and Bureaucrats? What, if any, current Bureaucrat duties could you see being handled by Stewards and, conversely, are there any tasks handled by Stewards currently that would be better in-sourcing back to English Wikipedia Bureaucrats?
A:
Additional question from Rschen7754
11. In the past you have pretty emphatically said that administrators should voluntarily subject themselves to a reconfirmation RFA every X years. (I'd have to dig to find those diffs). Is this a position that you still hold?
A: Yes, I think that would be of value, though I have noted some resistance by the community to what could be seen as arbitrary reconfirmations. Like you I would have to dig back for diffs, but I do remember some such comments in a few reconfirmation RfAs, which struck home to me, as I could see that a recon without a specific purpose (recent criticism, long time inactive, etc) could be seen as wasting the community's time. There may, though, be an appetite for recons for all ten year+ admins, as ten years is a long time in Wikipedia, and much has changed in that period. SilkTork (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Obvious support is obvious. Per nominator... me. WormTT(talk) 12:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No clear reason not to. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I admit that I'm slowly edging to the position that should be getting rid of the user group, rather than augmenting it. But SK was one of the few members of last year's ArbCom to emerge with any kind of grace, and the self-reflection that indicated suggests the nuance for this particular hat is already possessed in spades. ——SN54129 12:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Stephen 12:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure, why not? Steel1943 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support my impression of SilkTork is that he is thoughtful, and consistently makes judgements that are in the best interest of the project. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Fine with me. Deb (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very happy to support, great candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Trustworthy, thoughtful and deeply experienced. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Noting that while I prefer getting rid of crats and making everything they do so discretion free that stewards could do it, if we are to have them, they should reflect the current community, and SilkTork is trusted and reflects the current community. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. A trusted admin experienced in using measured, rational arguments in assessing consensus and closing actions. My full support. Loopy30 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I know it's cliché, but i've seen the candidate around so long and making such reasoned and reasonable statements that, without checking the pop-up, i truly though that he already was; thus, absolutely support. Happy days, LindsayHello 13:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Absolutely a plus to the crat corps. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, yup, seems good to me! BEANS X3 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Fully support SK as working with them on ArbCom was a pleasure. Will serve well I feel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - A highly trusted administrator. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Enthusiastic Support I don't even need to read the nomination statement (I will, though) as SilkTork is one of our most neutral and objective administrators we have. Their ability to assess consensus in tight situations is well proven. No concerns whatsoever. Doug Mehus T·C 14:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support wholeheartedly. Very impressed with his work on ArbCom.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Have worked with him extensively on GAs (eg: North Circular Road, Faversham), he is always civil and polite, is capable of disagreeing calmly and rationally, and he has apologised personally to me for things he thought were a mistake, showing great compassion. I trust his judgement and views completely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I first crossed paths with SilkTork in 2010, which means I've had (gets out calculator) roughly 10 (!) years to observe his approach to Wikipedia, which he clearly cares very much about. I agree with WormThatTurned that SilkTork would be an excellent fit for this role. 28bytes (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support There's not much left for Bureaucrats to do and one of the tasks is closing RfA. New 'crats jump to the opportunity to provide a timely close to obvious outcomes, however, when a 'crat chat is called, as one was recently, it seems to be a bit of a challenge to get enough 'crats together. We've had a couple of new 'crats recently and that might change things so adding Silk Tork to the list of genuinely active 'crats might not be a bad idea. As an admin he has performed 100% correctly, and the Arbitration Committee has lost a serious, fair and impartial member. Echoing Ritchie333's thoughts above, there is little chance that as a Bureacrat he will do anything controversial so I see no reason therefore why I should not support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Very good and trustworthy admin. Puddleglum2.0 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support heartily. I think I have only encountered SilkTork a few times, like Talk:Central Park/GA2, but my interactions with them are always helpful. To me, they are one of a few admins that would be perfectly fit for promotion to bureaucrat status. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, enthusiastically. – bradv🍁 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom who said it all. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 100% --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I trust SilkTork's judgement, and think that they would make an excellent crat. SQLQuery me! 15:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support SilkTork has been around a long time and is clearly a very knowledgable, experienced and trusted Wikipedian with a wide field of experience that makes him well suited to become a bureaucrat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - We need more crats here! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The examples given in answer 7 above demonstrate that the most important remaining job of bureaucrats - judging consensus in controversial RfA's - is a job for which SilkTork is well-qualified. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support we need more active crats. This candidate seems like a good one. --rogerd (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
  • @QEDK: I think Nosebagbear already asked your question which SilkTork has answered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, missed that, thanks Barkeep49. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is not intended and should not be taken as criticism or opposition to SilkTork. However, when I hoped that some fresh blood might join the bureaucrat team, I didn't have in mind someone who has been an admin for 12 years and been elected to ArbCom twice. I think it is important that we stop relying on old hands in key positions and look to editors from our younger "wiki-generations" to step up. I hope people looking at this RfB don't think you need SilkTork's resume to apply - I for one would love to see admins promoted over the last 5 years (sadly, they are all too few in number) running RfBs... WJBscribe (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/SilkTork&oldid=942588662"