Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SilkTork

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

SilkTork edit

Final (168/8/2); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 12:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination edit

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 edit

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]
Supports are positive about the candidate's skills, knowledge and experience - particularly in the area of copyright, a number indicating no concerns or red flags, and when the opposes built up a number reaffirmed their support. And while temperament and maturity were among the concerns of the opposers, a number of supporters spoke positively about temperament, behaviour, trustworthiness, maturity, or demeanour. The opposes are mainly on temperament/maturity and content creation, and focus on two incidents - a frustrated retirement message, and the lack of involvement in the Pizzagate article. As these incidents became better known, the opposes increased. The opposes and supports were valid (albeit seeming at times contradictory, as the supports were seeing positive maturity and temperament, while the opposes were seeing negative maturity and temperament, but this is partly down to individual interpretation of the available evidence) so the trend becomes interesting. What would have happened if the RfA had continued? Looking closely at the ivoting on the last three days I see support votes: 16th 10, 17th 11, 18th 11 - so mildly growing rather than decreasing, but mostly static. I see oppose votes: 16th 10, 17th 16, 18th 10. So it blips on the 17th but then returns to 10, but mostly static. I do not see in this a definite trend either way. We cannot conjecture from this which way the voting would have gone. The community are fairly divided on their interpretation of the candidate, but the finished % is that more are in favour, and the % falls within the accepted promotion range. Added to which, a number of the oppose comments say things like (from the last day): "reluctant", "weak" and "consider supporting in 6-12 months". So I would have voted to promote. SilkTork (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question
8.1 When you state I do not see in this a definite trend either way, do you think it is possible to gain reasonable conclusions from the trend and have it factor in your consensus to promote (or not)? If yes, why, if not, why not? This question is ofcourse with the addendum that no new information has suddenly been introduced, remember we are talking about Money emoji's RfA.
A. All factors are worth considering, and some are going to be more clear than others. The unclear factors are the ones where there will be some interpretation, which will differ from person to person depending on their own knowledge, experience and character. Some will give more weight to one aspect than another. Which is why a 'Crat Chat is useful - to have a chance to see the way that others are interpreting the RfA. I can see that it is possible to conjecture from the trend positives and negatives. The positive is that there is a slight growth in the last three days of supports, and that on the final day there were slightly more supports to opposes. The negative is that the opposes in the last three days total more than the supports, and though they drop on the last day they don't drop significantly behind the supports. My own conclusion from this is that the negatives and positives balance out - they can be argued either way. We know that overall the trend in RfAs is for supports to come in earlier and opposes to come in later (though there are plenty of exceptions to this - typically where the candidate is clearly not ready or is controversial). And that has to be taken into consideration when looking at a closing trend. Now this is not a live 'Crat Chat, so I don't have a chance to see how other 'crats respond to my interpretation, which may alter my thinking; so if you feel that there are aspects of my interpretation which are weak or muddled or even wrong, I'd welcome you putting your views forward here so I can re-scrutinise my interpretation. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 27 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: 'Crats and Arbs tend to be among our most experienced and trusted users. They tend to be individuals who are not afraid of dealing with controversial topics, are not impulsive, and can explain their thinking. The qualities that make a typical Arb tend to be the same qualities that make a typical 'Crat, which is probably why there is sometimes an overlap. SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: I don't think I see the same overlap between stewards and bureaucrats as I see between arbitrators and bureaucrats. Stewards I see as being the general administrators for Wikimedia, while 'Crats have a specific role on their local Wiki. Where a local Wiki can handle matters themselves, I feel it is better that they do so, so I would not want to see any role that eng.wiki can do being given to stewards. Stewards can globally block users, which means a steward can block a user on a local wiki, including our own, without going through local community process and consensus. While I understand the need for such global blocks, I would prefer that major wiki communities, such as eng.wiki, be responsible for all blocks on their own community. As such, I would prefer that the stewards and/or WMF consult with the local wiki 'Crats and/or Arbs to request we uphold a global block, and allow us to impose it (or not, if we so decide) ourselves. I value our independence, and respect our decision making. (Disclosure, I did apply to be a steward many years ago, as I had an interest in helping out on other projects, and I was voted in, but then disqualified because I hadn't done the paperwork. I can't recall exactly what it was - I think it was perhaps because I hadn't shown WMF my identity papers, so that would have been before I joined ArbCom.) SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
12. Do you think this question "Have you edited under previous account" asked in several RFA as it appears by some editors as it appears to than that the candidate fails WP:DUCK is appropriate in the context of this Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship says candidates are not obliged to publicly disclose previous accounts.
A: The question is appropriate as we have had users in the past applying for adminship without disclosing previous accounts, and this generates distrust and unease. If the candidate doesn't wish to reveal their previous account publicly, they can do so privately to ArbCom, and then answer the question by saying yes they had a previous account which has been disclosed to ArbCom. The responsibility then passes to the Committee who may decide to make a statement regarding the candidate's suitability, as in "The Committee has examined the conduct of the previous account and see no reason why the candidate should not apply to become an admin". If the Committee feel that there are valid reasons why the candidate should not apply to be an admin they could advise the candidate not to apply (or to withdraw), making them aware that if they persisted then the Committee would make a public statement such as "The Committee has examined the conduct of the previous account and feel the community should be aware that there are seven blocks for edit warring and three for personal attacks." SilkTork (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
12A. Do you think Candidates should disclose whether they had a previous account in a RFA (without the naming the account).Particurly for those making there clean start after conflict rather than privacy reasons.
A: Yes. Transparency is important. The Wikipedia community are very tolerant, understanding and forgiving of those who are open and honest. But we are very intolerant of deception and dishonesty. SilkTork (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?
A: I can't speak for other 'Crats but if appointed I would independently analyse and interpret the consensus of the RfA discussion informed by policy. IAR is there for those cases where following a rule would harm the project in some way, so if it was appropriate to use IAR in a RfA then I would do so. I can't think of an example right now (which is what IAR is for - those instances we hadn't previously thought about, and so don't have guidance for). SilkTork (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nihlus
14. How would you have determined consensus during the RexxS and Jbhunley bureaucrat discussions?
A: I will come back to this a little later. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS finished just outside the discretionary zone, as such there would need to be an exceptional reason to promote. A point to take into account as something exceptional is the timing of the RfA on April Fools Day by Bishonen's alternative account, Bishzilla, which is used for humour. Both oppose and support comments mentioned the timing and the joke account. People appeared to vote how they would normally - I don't see any user that appear to have been misled to place a support or oppose vote under the impression that it was a joke, and that were not later amended. Objections to an RfA being started in such a manner are valid, so can't be discounted. I'm not seeing the date or the use of a humorous alternative account as being an exceptional circumstance that prejudiced unfairly the RfA one way or the other. The opposes are as valid as the supports, and the percentage of the community deciding to promote did not fall within the range that the community by consensus agreed on. I don't see anything unfair or untoward in the RfA. From the start the opposers were clear in why they were opposing, and that reason remained solid throughout. I don't see any reason to dismiss or diminish the validity of the oppose !votes and comments. I would have voted that there was no consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jbhunley finished at a higher percentage support than RexxS, though was one of the first to go to a 'Crat Chat under the extended range. There appear to be four areas that come up more than once among the opposes, and that is content creation, language and other behaviour (including behaviour during the RfA), behaviour during an ArbCom case request, and pro-deletion attitude at AfD. The AfD opposes were only three, so not significant. The content creation was also less significant than first appears, as a number of opposes mentioned content creation to say that it wasn't an issue for them, or was a minor concern - I count only 14 who weight content creation highly. The bulk of the concern was behaviour - with 70 citing that as a reason. But if we take away those who focused on the ArbCom case (41), then behaviour concerns are only cited by around 29 people. The supports are very strong, and include 67 supports that directly mention in some way the oppose for behaviour (I've not counted those who mentioned the oppose for content creation, as it was not the major reason for opposing). Most of those who mentioned the behaviour in the support comments came later, and a number of those who had supported earlier, came back not just to reaffirm their support, but to address the behaviour issue and say that it was not a concern for them - the general trend of the support thinking is that the behaviour issues were not that common for the candidate, and that admins did not have to be angels. Looking at the trend. The last four days voting go like this: Support: 10, 17, 31, 4 (total=62). Oppose: 9, 4, 5, 0 (total=19). The most compelling oppose was temperament, particularly during the ArbCom request, but that was addressed by increasing supports toward the closing days of the RfA which indicates to me that the community had considered those concerns, and the consensus was that they were not that important. My vote would have been that there was consensus to promote. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Tymon.r
15. The community has once decided to lower the discretionary range for RfA closures to 65-75% (of support). Do you believe it was a good decision? Should it be lowered even further (e.g. per WP:!VOTE) to let 'crats evaluate consensus and arguments in more cases?
A: The first admins were selected (almost randomly) by Jimbo because it was "no big deal". The idea being that if you're working here on Wikipedia, then you must have good intentions. Sadly we have discovered that not everyone has good intentions, or they have good intentions but poor judgement or an uneven temperament. The RfA was brought in to allow the community a chance to look at someone's editing history in order to assess their judgement and temperament. In the early days these RfAs were not advertised, so someone could become an admin with minimal scrutiny. As such, we did have problems with some admins being appointed who turned out not to be suitable. With RfAs now being advertised more widely, and community turn out being quite high, there is intense scrutiny, and so having the discretionary range at 65-75% feels appropriate. I feel we are appointing a more solid and reliable bunch of admins, despite the lower range, because of the greater scrutiny. I'm not sure that lowering the range any further would actually assist us in continuing to elect solid and reliable admins. It may do more harm. What would help is encouraging more candidates to step forward. Both for admin and for 'crat. What puts people off is facing difficult questions and some hostile opposes. Now, a part of being an admin or 'crat is the ability to face up to scrutiny, and to respond to even hostile questioning. People are often hostile because they don't understand, and so the hostile critic requires a respectful answer as much as the polite inquirer. However, there should be a limit to how much hostility anyone should face when volunteering to help out on a charity project. And I have noticed in recent years a greater tendency for 'crats to monitor and clerk RfAs. I find this a positive tendency, and one that I think is more helpful than lowering the discretionary range. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. How many 'crats do we need on English Wikipedia? Why some administrators should never become 'crats?
A: As this is a volunteer project with no time schedules and no contracts, there may be times when crats are simply not available. The more crats we have, the more chances there are that there will be enough volunteers available to do the job. I see no reason to put a limit on it. What we can do is perhaps consider setting a quorum for 'Crat Chats - that there should be a minimum and maximum number of 'crats involved. But I see no reason to limit the pool from which the quorum is drawn. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a reason why all admins should not become 'crats. Admins are trusted to judge consensus and close discussions, and that is the main function of the 'crats job. It's an extra level of trust and responsibility, so it is appropriate that the 'crat rights are not automatically bundled into the admin tool set, and that people apply separately. Indeed, I feel that some of the tools in the admin set could be split out now to allow a greater range of users to have access to some of the tools. There could be an editorial set of tools, such as protection, and the ability to move articles to previously used titles with an edit history, given to experienced editors. Not everyone wants the ability to block other others, but may value the ability to perform useful tasks helpful to the project. So I wouldn't advocate for the crat rights to be bundled into the admin tool set, but I would encourage more admins to apply to be a 'crat - as far as I'm aware the 'crat common room has a limitless supply of comfy chairs and tea and biscuits. SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Trialpears
17. Crats have the ability to grant interface administrator rights and thus have all the same security risks as an interface administrator. All users with interface administrator access are required to use two-factor authentication (2FA) due to security risks involved with the permission. Would you be willing to enable 2FA to minimize said risks?
A: Security questions are awkward because in answering them certain information may be revealed. I understand, though, your concern because if a 'crat account is hacked that account could then give interface admin rights to a roque account. I will therefore affirm that my account is secure. SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Altamel
18. Former admins with no edits for two years since their tools were removed cannot apply through WP:BN to regain their sysop flag. Is this a bright-line rule, or can bureaucrats weigh whether the former admin's editing history demonstrates an intent to resume actively performing admin duties? For instance, a case where the former admin has been staying just barely above one edit per year.
A: Two years with no edits is a policy, so that is a bright line. The person would need to apply via RfA. The second part of your question is trickier. One year of no activity, and so desysopped, and then one edit 6 months later, and then a request at BN 6 months later means by the letter of law they can apply at BN because they haven't gone 2 years with no edits. Though the person can apply at BN, that doesn't mean the 'crats are obliged to restore the rights, and if such a request were to occur, and I were a 'crat, I would call for a 'Crat Chat to look into the circumstances. If that one edit was sublimely wonderful, and indicated ongoing interest in and understanding of Wikipedia then I would be inclined to be favourable, if it were a small edit, then I would likely decline and suggest RfA. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19. If a bureaucrat unilaterally closes a tight RfA, can/should they consider requests from the community to have a crat chat close the RfA instead?
A: Yes. All requests should always be considered. We have IAR for a reason, and should not blindly follow the letter of the law, but look at the intention behind the words. It is the intention that matters not the sometime inadequate wording we use to convey that intention. Process is there to help the project, it is not there to be followed for its own sake. I like that we have due process, as that is the summing up of previous consensus. But consensus can change, so while following process, we should always keep an eye open for process which is no longer appropriate or not meeting current consensus. So any request should be examined to see if it is reasonable, and to check if the 'crat has missed something important. That is not to say that a 'Crat Chat should be opened on request, but that the request itself should always be considered. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Andrew D.
20. The account name SilkTork is intriguing and you say that you've used it since the 1990s. I find that Tork is a brand of hygienic paper products but that seems an unlikely connection. Please explain.
A:SilkTork is a name I first used when I joined Audiogalaxy (AG) back in the 1990s. AG had many members, and selecting a name wasn't easy - everything I chose, someone else already had, so I set about constructing one. Silk is a material I like. I thought of silk scarf, that led me to silk torc - a torc being worn around the neck like a scarf. I am Celtic so the torc seemed appropriate. I selected a k at the end instead of a c because when younger I liked Tyrannosaurus Rex (saw T. Rex at Weeley in 1971), and torc put me in mind of Steve Peregrin Took whose name, incidentally, is close to mine: Steve Pereira. This was not as considered a thinking process as I am making it out to be - I came to SilkTork in much less time than it has taken to explain it! SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from 2001:e68:543a:c579:4943:cbe8:4563:9d96
21. This refers to an issue discussed off site.An editor socked for 6 months using his college IP despite being warned clearly violating WP:SOCK ,WP:3RR ,Edit warring .Now the editor also used his real name on the project and had his edits were oversighted before the RFA which also covered his socking from the community.There are 2 arguments are over this one, regressive to take action now after 6 years or other argument that there is coverup and candidate would not have cleared his RFA had it not been oversighted.Which one is right ?
A: If this is a real incident I think it is better for you to take your concerns to ArbCom in private for them to look into it, rather than have me speculate over it in public. If it is a hypothetical, and it happened six years ago, and the person has done six useful, productive years as an admin, then hypothetically I see little value to the community or the project in bringing the matter up now. SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Leaky
22. Please describe examples of possible conflict of interest which would cause you not to participate in a 'crat. decision or discussion.
A:The obvious is of course any involvement in the RfA, and then it would be any relationship (on or off Wikipedia), negative or positive, with the candidate that might be seen as likely or possible to influence judgement. That's sometimes tricky to judge, as we can't always gauge how other people may see a relationship. As an Arb I felt that if someone objected to me being involved in a case because of a relationship or conflict that I would simply recuse without question, but such blind compliance could lead to gaming the system, so if someone asked me to recuse where I had not seen myself a reason to recuse, then I would consult with the rest of the Committee. Another possible reason is where I might have not been involved in the RfA but had formed a judgement myself. I think that would depend on the circumstances. When looking at the three RfAs in the questions, I had an opinion while looking at them of which way my !voting would have gone. I won't say which, nor how many, but in those three RfAs my 'crat conclusions are not necessarily the way I would have voted. I think, though, that reaching a conclusion opposite to my personal opinion where the decision doesn't matter is not quite the same as reaching a decision where it does matter. However, I have closed a number of discussions over the years which I did not actually agree with, but that was the consensus. When looking at an AfD, and noting that the consensus is to delete, but I can see valid reasons to keep, then I have not closed that discussion, but !voted instead. Each circumstance tends to be a little different, and I don't think there is going to be one formula that fits all, but where I think my judgement might be clouded, I will recuse. SilkTork (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Robert McClenon
23. What other functions besides Crat Chats on RFA candidates do bureaucrats have? Please explain as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: Most of the functions are detailed on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Essentially, 'crats have tools that can grant and remove certain extra rights. 'Crats are limited to certain circumstances when they can grant or remove those rights, all of which require following consensus. So while 'crats can make someone an admin or a 'crat or interface admin, etc, or remove some of those rights (not 'crat rights), they can't do so on their own whim, they have to do so following clearly defined process. This doesn't mean, though, that it's simply a switch flicking role, otherwise it could be done automatically; 'Crats sometimes need to make judgements as to if a user (or bot) meets the requirements. Where making that judgement might be particularly difficult or sensitive, a 'crat chat of some sort will take place. But most cases where 'crats are involved do not require such chats, such as desyopping due to technical reasons such as inactivity. In addition to what's on the crat page, some 'crats who have the global renamer right also do name changes, including usurping existing but unused names; but of the 17 'crats we have at the moment, only six have got that right, and while some users here have the right but are not 'crats, my understanding (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) is only a local 'crat who is a global renamer can do usurpations. SilkTork (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hawkeye7
24. Bureaucrats are not limited to certain circumstances when they can grant or remove rights, are not required to follow consensus, and can and have exercised their tools based solely on their own judgement of the situation. Given that WP:IAR is a pillar, that bureaucrats are specifically chosen for their judgement, and that they are highly trusted members of the community, is there is any need or call for clearly defined processes, and if so how could they be made binding? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: Interesting question. I am away from home at the moment, but should be able to respond Sunday evening, or Monday morning at the latest. SilkTorkAway (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following the first two phrases in your question, because as far as I'm aware 'crats are limited to certain circumstances and are required to follow consensus - unless you mean that 'crats have the technical ability to do things outside consensus. Each tool that a user has grants certain technical abilities, but if a user uses these tools outside consensus they will face questions, and - if appropriate - sanctions up to being banned from the project. A non-admin has the tools to revert continuously, but if that person does so they will face questions, and if there is no justification, they will be blocked. So, each of us has a responsibility to follow consensus. 'Crat, admin, registered user and IP. And each of us can IAR if our policies and guidelines prevent us from doing the right thing. The difference between an IP, a registered user, an auto-confirmed user, an admin, and a 'crat is that each successive user group has more access to the tool set and so there is a greater need for responsibility in the use of those tools. Provided their IP address is not blocked, any person can themselves decide to assume the extra access that being a registered user allows. The next step is done automatically when a user has edited for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits. The next two steps are only done by active community consensus. But, essentially we are all responsible for the tool set we are given. We are all, regardless of user group, expected to follow consensus, including invoking IAR where appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Can I Log In
25. Currently, there is no official Request for de-adminship system. The only way to remove an admin is by admin request through two options, or by ArbCom. In question, for involuntary removal, ArbCom would be indirect removal. If there were to be a direct Request for de-adminship system, do you think Bureaucrats should get involved? Can I Log In (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, both to assess consensus and close the discussion and to remove the bit as appropriate. Essentially, the same as with a RfA. SilkTork (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion edit

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

Support edit
  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. I like pie. Steel1943 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 27 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]
  36. Happy to support - trusted, well-regarded candidate. GirthSummit (blether) 16:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I really like the answer to Q4. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support on the strength of the nomination and nominator. Ifnord (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I was a little surprised that the candidate had to go back to November to have 5 (non-arb) closes. That said, their closes (particularly their R&I DRV one) was excellent. Regarding their Q4 & Q5 answers, it's not completely in line with my preferences, but I do believe that they demonstrate a capability to think through the area well enough to be a benefit to the corps. While I too would like 'crat candidates with shorter time as admins, that's in no way a negative against this particular candidate - both is fine by me! Notwithstanding any future questions on bots, I think Silk is a worthwhile addition to the 'chat. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A trusted name, with an equally trusted nominator. No qualms. Rcsprinter123 (shout) 16:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - As per User:Worm That Turned. - FitIndia Talk Commons 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support no problems. As expained by nom, we need more crats. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. An excellent choice for crat. SilkTork's greatest strength is his ability to listen and to treat all editors and opinions with respect, even when facing criticism, even when facing very strong criticism. ST's experience and even temperament will be an asset to the crat corps. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No hesitation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Highly trusted, very competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support the candidate, but I'm actually not convinced that we need any more bureaucrats. Wouldn't hurt to have another sensible voice there, I suppose. El_C 17:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. It is time for SilkTork to take silk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newyorkbrad:, (edit conflict) Brilliant response! The best I've read thus far. Doug Mehus T·C 17:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  48. No concerns, perfect candidate. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support having seen him around my whole time here, ST seems ceaselessly level-headed and thoughtful. I completely trust his judgment and would be happy to see him added to the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for volunteering! Ajpolino (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No issues. We need more crats. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SilkTork's 2018 ArbCom Candidate Statement shows an editor who understands their role in and the importance of community decision-making. An easy support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Absolutely. Silk has been an upstanding admin, and it really is time for some more crats. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I would probably have supported them without reservation a year ago, but this last year taken my opinion of them up a notch. Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - absolutely! Atsme Talk 📧 18:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support a thoughtful person willing to look at both sides --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I like SilkTork. That's all I got. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support No reason shown they cannot be trusted to be impartial.--MONGO (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support will be a net-positive to the project. The idea that more users in a the 'crat role is a bad thing is silly. If anything, adding more takes away from the exclusivity of the user right, and thus its perceived importance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- per Worm. Competent user with good judgement. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Trusted user. No qualms. Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support The candidate seems to have bureaucratic levels of clue. A trout is gently offered to those editors who feel net positive candidates should somehow be denied the right because they are volunteering for free but not volunteering for free enough times a year. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Yep--v/r - TP 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support WP:TTWOA. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Weak Support due to issues raised by the opposers, but otherwise a good candidate! Foxnpichu (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  66. My principle desire for more bureaucrats is to implement the 2015 RFC requests, in particular, the clerking mandate. Additional voices at bureaucrat discussions would - imo - be nice, and perhaps help resolve them in less than 100 hours, but that would be a secondary reason. It's also probably unwise to wait until there's an urgent need for bureaucrats, as by then it may be too late. SilkTork would make an excellent addition to the bureaucrat team. –xenotalk 23:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Levelheaded editor who will make a good anything. Not sure why we need to measure "need" since the future is uncertain (and the end is always near). --regentspark (comment) 02:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per Worm. Mgasparin (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - great admin and will definitely make a great 'crat too. Tolly4bolly 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, no concerns, and am sure that this user will be a fine bureaucrat. Glad to have another onboard! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support no concerns! Royalbroil 04:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork is just the kind of admin I support for bureaucrat, even if we don't need more 'crats; of the two, SilkTork is the one I have trusted now for several years to exercise the kind of judgment needed in 'crat decisions, and beyond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, without reservation. I have only seen good work from this administrator, and, to quote myself from the previous discussion, because "it is good for the project to inject fresh blood into positions such as these, even if we are perceived to have enough officeholders to perform the function". BD2412 T 04:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Per WormTT(talk) and xenotalk. If memory serves me correctly, as few as four crat chat votes have been enough to decide an RFA. A few more, especially in view of last year's net loss of bureaucrats, would be helpful. Silk Tork has been a fine administrator and admirable member of Arbcom. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Lourdes 04:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. A great choice. Station1 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Of course! This is a good candidate and we need more good bureaucrats. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per the supporters.--!nnovativ (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support based on my experience working with SilkTork (3 years sharing an ArbCom term). AGK ■ 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Clearly level-headed and some great answers, thus far. Full confidence. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. The positions in SilkTork's answers are well-argued. The selection of closures of contentious discussions in answer #7 shows reasonable judgment. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per nom. Solid admin and would make a good crat. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Experienced, incisive, trustworthy. Vexations (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Seems like a great candidate! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - SilkTork was on the ArbCom for a while last year, and my observation there was that they were showed excellent insight into the issues, were thoughtful and intelligent, and importantly were willing to engage with the community during cases, and respond to people's concerns and opinions. I was sorry to see them leave the committee, and am glad that they're here volunteering again for an upgrade to the shiny buttons. I am also impressed by their answer to question 8 - it shows that they have a good grasp of the issues raised at the recent RFA, and ability to analyse the relevant "trends" in the context of the overall RFA, rather than drawing a line-of-best-fit on the trend graph with a ruler, and coming to the dubious conclusion that the candidate would have certainly failed if the RFA had continued. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing your decisions at future RFAs.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Looks like an ideal candidate! Flalf (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Well-qualified candidate. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support pretty much per nom. Meets my RfA/RfB criteria (as I can trust that they will use the crat tools to benefit the community). We need more crats IMO (the recent crat chat is the reason why I think this). Therefore, I support. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support without reservation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - I see no issues. In fact some of their answers were what made me decide to vote at all. Specifically numbers 11, 13, 14, and 20. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Trusted, experienced user. His answers to questions confirm my impression that he has good clue and a good sense of what the community thinks. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Seems to be a really good candidate to be a 'crat. Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support sounds like an ideal candidate and the answers above are insightful. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Qualified candidate, trustworthy. Would make a great bureaucrat.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  99. No problems here. Even if there are only two or three uses of the crat role a year, I don't think that's a big deal. It's not as if having a scarcely used role harms the wiki. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Clearly competent and qualified. Will provide some insightful comments to cratchats. The horrible possibility of someone malitious and competent getting their hands on a crat account (or any of the high risk user rights really) is something that keep me up at night and I think anyone with advanced user rights should seriously consider using 2FA in addition to a strong and unique password which is why I asked the question. I can say from my own experience that it really isn't as annoying as I thought it would be. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - qualified candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Thank you for answering my questions. While I disagree with some of the conclusions, I have no reservations over the logic that you used. Nihlus 23:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Excellent candidate, and we obviously need more active crats to close ... well, close RfAs. Miniapolis 23:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Unquestionably qualified with no persuasive arguments against. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support: No problem with this guy ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support I have come across this editor on the project. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: I have been impressed with Silk Tork across the project for a long time, including as an arb and admin. I might not have voted but having seen a number of opposes to prevent the number of bureaucrats from growing, I wanted to support a clearly qualified candidate because I see no reason not to have additional 'crats; additional active ones would have been useful in the recent RfA. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Good candidate. Even if additional crats are only needed for the rare crat chat, it is better to have a larger pool. So I can see the need to have more even if there is not much work to do. PaleAqua (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support -Absolutely, complete trust. Give them the updated mop! - FlightTime (open channel) 04:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page.
  111. Support – No reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Clearly trusted and experienced. Jianhui67 T★C 08:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support qualified candidate. The most recent crat chat proves this position is still needed. I don't want a bunch of mostly out-of-touch Wikipedians popping in to make judgement calls on close RFAs. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support well qualified, also liked answers to the questions. Not sure if there is any practical need for additional crats, but having more won't hurt either.--Staberinde (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - respected Wikipedian, can be trusted, and the opposition arguments don't hold water. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: highly trustworthy and talented user with all the knowledge needed to evaluate consensus and not make technical mistakes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support has demonstrated experience in dealing with controversial matters in a manner that shows both temprament & judgement. As existing crats have request more, I am happy to go along with that request. Find bruce (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - In all my interactions with SilkTork over the past twelve years, he never let me down. Whether he'll use the 'crat rights twice a week or twice a year, I see no reason to pass up on the services of someone as diligent and dependable as he is. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - I still don't really know what a 'crat does, but I trust that SilkTork won't do anything harmful. I have been satisfied with the candidate since they tried to mediate the Tea Party Movement dispute, where they did a credible job of attempting what was later seen to be impossible, American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support because candidate is excellent editor and admin, and I can see some upside to having another crat, and can't see any downside. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Per nom. SpencerT•C 05:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support an excellent editor and admin, am happy with the response to QEDK's question about Money emoji's 'crat chat, and see no problem with having more 'crats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support trustworthy admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - SilkTork's history of edits are good developments, particularly with pages branching off a primary page. --Lent (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support a very trusted admin and a level head, I've worked with SilkTork and seen SilkTork work with a number of problem editors with a level head and steady tack, always in line with our core principles. I think SilkTork would be a good bureaucrat. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support, a content creator and a good admin. GregJackP Boomer! 10:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support, quality editor and person.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support based on my experience with this editor. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support – SilkTork is highly competent and sensible, and would be a good bureaucrat. Thoughtful and well-reasoned responses to the questions above. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support A trustworthy admin. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. I recall being impressed by a level-headed RfC close by SilkTork some time ago. I looked at their contributions then and felt they were close to being an ideal editor. I have a lot of faith in their ability to handle bureaucratship. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Sensible, trusted user. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 18:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support so far the experience has been good. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Qualified and trustworthy, he would be an asset to the bureaucrat team.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - Fit and reasonable candidate. I will expand this later if time allows, just wanted to place my mark here if it does not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support I agree that some fresh bureaucrats would be helpful, and SilkTork is very well qualified. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Weak support. Certainly a good candidate, but I'm not entirely convinced we need two more 'Crats. While some 'Crats thought so, the 'Cratchat they feared would drag on without resolution actually did not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Of course.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Not terribly convinced we need more crats (and not a huge fan of crat chats), but that's not a good argument against a good candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Richard Nevell (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - SilkTork should make a useful bureaucrat, I particularly liked the answer to question 15. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Comte0 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support, I have consistently experienced SilkTork to be levelheaded and have very good judgment. I find the reasoning in the opposes as of this writing entirely unconvincing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - I supported SilkTork's RfA and I'm not aware of him doing anything subsequently to make me doubt that that was anything other than a good choice. Happy to support the recommendation for a crat role danno_uk 23:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - definitely a good editor and administrator, and my first choice out of the 3 RfBs active at the time of this !vote. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Take him while you can get him. maclean (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - I see no valid reason to oppose. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support to outweigh the ludicrous "oppose" reasons - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Definitely. Fresh eyes are needed, and SilkTork qualifies. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support – Answers to Q15&Q16 prove very mature attitude of the candidate. Thanks for them and thank you for your service! You're gonna make a great 'crat. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support I highly doubt Silktork will misuse the tools Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - I appreciate SilkTork's thoughtfulness and willingness to keep an open mind. Both are good qualities for a bureaucrat. Also, good answers to the questions. Altamel (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support, why not? Fish+Karate 09:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - I have always thought of SilkTork as a thoughtful and insightful editor whose presence tends to improve a discussion. Wikipedia would be benefit from SilkTork becoming a bureaucrat. WJ94 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - SilkTork's contributions to discussions and closures tend to be noticeably more thoughtful than most - and combined with the overall good balance of work, seems like an excellent bureaucrat candidate. ~ mazca talk 15:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support welcome addition to the ranks. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Yesssss! — kashmīrī TALK 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Yup! Can understand policies and expectations on wikipedia as a former ArbCom member, admin, and soon a bureaucrat. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} [[User talk|(talk)]]
  162. Support Smart, trustworthy, and a good temperament for the job. I'm particularly unconvinced by the opposition citing lack of content work. My first interaction with SilkTork was years ago when they did a GA review for me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. I'm not convinced we need more bureaucrats (since I don't think there really has been a problem with recent RFAs), but SilkTork continues to demonstrate the right level of clue and thoughtfulness to be a net positive to this role. Martinp (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Trust their judgment, and who cares how many crats there are. --Bison X (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. Reflective, humble and involved. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support I've seen SilkTork's work over the years and trust their judgement as an admin. Their well rounded experience and thorough knowledge and demonstration of policies and guidelines shows that they will be a good bureaucrat. TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. Very well qualified. I've often noticed SilkTork's insightful contributions to discussions around the wiki, and I'm sure their input will be valuable to the occasional 'crat discretionary decision. the wub "?!" 12:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1. Per my own and unique interpretation of WP:NOTBURO. There is no obvious, compelling or persuasive need to create more people in a role that has extremely limited scope and has ample members to jump on an RfA within seconds of it expiring. Looks ever so slightly like a hat collecting opportunity, but hey, who am I to say. I've only been here 14 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 桜 c) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Speaking in generalities, a user who only plans to use a specific right one to two times a year (the current frequency of crat chats) should not have it. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think SilkTork is an admirable editor. I cannot see the point in elevating more bureaucrats. WTT spoke of the need for more voices in crat chats such as the recent one. There were many voices from which the crats could have drawn useful guidance, from non-voters on the talk pages, or from SilkTork themselves if desired. Are only the views of the crat-voters worth considering? Because to be honest, the individual votes of the crats seemed very I-know-it-when-I-see-it. If the opinion of one crat is not sufficient for a close close, are the opinions of 15 crats any better? What about 1,500? I am happy to honor SilkTork for their many contributions to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure the way to do it is to hand them a hat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry, but I have to oppose. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Joseph: Opposing SilkTork is your right... But, would you please explain why you're opposing? OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Pppery. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - partly because Wehwalt has a valid point. Nothing against you personally, but you've been with Wikipedia 14 years, since January 2006. And you only have one Featured Article, and 192 article creations total, the rest of which appear to not have gone through any review process. Indeed, why do we need more bureaucrats. But more to the point, why do we need a bureaucrat with very little hands-on experience for what might come up. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per Leaky caldron. –Davey2010Talk 10:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Leaky Cauldron Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit
  1. Parking myself here since I fully intend to vote in this RfA dependent on the candidate's answer to Q8, until then, pretty neutral. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC) This is a hard call because I intended on either supporting or opposing this candidate but I'm unable to do either. I find their answer to trendlines to be covering some bases, I hope they understand their nuanced answer to the question regarding trendlines means they understand how quickly it exhausts its usefulness. There is a fair bit of going around in circles in my follow-up question where albeit the candidate did ask me to ask more questions, the follow-up question was meant for exactly that. I do not think I need to be giving leading questions to get an ideal response. Fwiw, I consider SilkTork to be one of the better ArbCom members who has consistently displayed good judgement and have no problem either way if they get the crat bit, given that they will take the community view (on trendlines, as is being conducted at VPP) into account. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you intended to write "RfB" instead of "RfA"? This is an RfB. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning support. SilkTork's answer to Q14 makes me admire his guts to disagree with the prevalent outcome in both cited RfAs, but at the same time worry that appointing him as a bureaucrat will mean that RfA crat chats will become more of a debate amongst crats. That said, his answer to Q13 and Q17 give me great confidence that he understands the philosophy behind both the social aspect and the technical aspect of Wikipedia. Deryck C. 12:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comments edit
  • @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]
    You have my full agreement on that WJBscribe, and I'd certainly happily talk to any of those younger admins nominating them as I have SilkTork. However, I would consider any "older" admin who passes RfB in 2020 or beyond to be a "new" crat. The reason for this is that they won't have the history with the role, renames, a 70-80% discretionary range etc - they will take on the role as it is now. An RfB is already such a rare thing these days that we shouldn't hold out for the unicorn. WormTT(talk) 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WJBscribe: If you're really looking for fresh blood, then nominate Newslinger. It's not like they're aren't qualified at this point. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped, especially as a former Arb, to see Silk a little more reflective on the point WJB raises (hence my question). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if I was alone feeling somewhat uncomfortable about @QEDK:'s general question asking for @SilkTork: to provide a comment on how they'd have voted in Money Emoji's CRATCHAT. The editor has just had a pretty abrasive 2 weeks, and while we expect admins to be reasonably thick skinned, having it reoccur for a third week seems a little harsh. Perhaps I'm over-estimating the potential problem or under-egging its probative value (of which there certainly is some) - but I wanted to see some broader thoughts Nosebagbear (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: That's an interesting objection but statements in cratchats are about the assessment of consensus and not the candidate themselves. Given that the question has no real bearing on Money emoji's RfA (since it's done and dusted), I'm fairly confident Money emoji will not be bothered by an assessment of the consensus — their RfA has now come up in a ton of places citing difficulty in RfAs/lack of crats/trendline measures/what not (quite a unique RfA tbh), do you suggest we remove all of those instances in an attempt to allay this alleged situation as well? --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: - it was more a concern were Silk to say something about thinking certain oppose arguments were better grounded etc, rather than an issue of thinking that anything pertaining to it would be a concern (having raised related questions myself, that would be rather hypocritical at best) Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no I totally understand your concern but I am certain enough that Money emoji would be able to deal with it. If they were to tell me to stop with this line of questioning, I definitely would, either way, I do agree with your concerns although I felt it was not problematic enough to not use as a testcase. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suspect you're missing one tilde (~) when you sign. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above bureaucratship 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_bureaucratship/SilkTork&oldid=1092479939"