Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/silsor

See original

Silsor

Good contributor and RC junky. Needs to be an admin so that we don't have to listen to him requesting for page deletions on #wikipedia. Has been here for approximately three months with approximately 900 edits. --snoyes 01:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Eloquence already did this, from Wikipedia:Recently created admins: "Nominated by Snoyes and quickly promoted by me because I did not foresee any objections and he kept pointing out vandalism on IRC. If you have any objections, you can still comment here." -- Tim Starling 02:21, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is likely the worst precedent ever. silsor 02:23, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. 500+ article edits, lots of trustworthy interaction in IRC. Though I agree with silsor, this fast-tracking can only stir up bad feelings about the whole adminship thing. Fuzheado 02:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• I would support Silsor, but I think quickly promoting him was a very bad idea and an violation of policy. Silsor must first accept this nomination. Very very bad... --Jiang 02:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Support Silsor. Maximus Rex 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• As I have stated on Eloquence's talk page, I don't think that it is justified for any developer to take it upon himself or herself to grant administratorship, which ought to be granted by the authority of the users themselves. Furthermore, I said that it is inappropriate for a developer to enter the realm of prophecy by determining that there could possibly be no objection. Support. -- Lord Emsworth
• Great contributor, and I will happily support him in another couple months, but not yet. Fast tracking like this sets a very bad precedent. Oppose. →Raul654 02:40, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Silsor is eminently qualified to be a sysop. The fast tracking Eloquence performed was skipping a week's worth of discussion on RFA, not skipping a few months' worth of contributions. -- Tim Starling 02:50, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I misunderstood what Jiang by fast tracking. I thought it was in reference to the fact that that he has not been here very long, but I see that was incorrect. I withdraw my opposition and support. →Raul654 11:39, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • At present, this entire section is of no value as silsor is already an administrator. Perhaps the discussion should be moved elsewhere. -- Lord Emsworth 02:55, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, this discussion needs to proceed without taking Eloquence's premature action into account. It's for the record... It will also determine whether that decision was justified or whether it should be revoked. --Jiang 06:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think that, even if Silsor is qualified to be an administrator, and even if there is full consensus on his nomination, Eloquence's decision would not on these bases be justified. One ought not to start prophesising and decide for oneself if there will or will not be any objections. -- Lord Emsworth 11:32, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (after the fact). I was thinking of nominating him myself, and I agree that the fast tracking was a bad idea. Dori | Talk 04:20, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
• I'd thought of nominating Silsor too, but I thought with only (very approx) 300 unique article edits that it was probably too soon to do so, though I would have supported a nomination made by someone else had he not already been made a sysop before I saw this. Angela. 04:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
• I support Silsor's sysopship but I don't agree with Eloquence's action. Developer power should not be used for editorial purposes, only for technical decisions such as feature design. Despite having "only" 900 contributions (I thought that used to be plenty) he seems like a responsible person. -- Tim Starling 04:44, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
• I always assumed Silsor was an administrator anyway, based upon the quality of his edits and his dedication to preserving the integrity of Wikipedia. So I wholeheartedly support his promotion. Next time I want vandalism deleted, I can bug him! :-) - Mark 16:38, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Endorse. I can't "support" because it already happened, but I retroactively endorse his sysopship. Eloquence, did you really promote him unilaterally, and without even listing his name here for 24 hours? If I still had DB access, I would undo that just to make everything neat and orderly. Anyway, Silsor is (will be) a fine admin. --Uncle Ed 16:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Support Secretlondon 22:41, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Tuf-Kat
• Support Silsor. Oppose developer's action. Optim 01:15, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)