Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asilvering: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (119/1/0); Scheduled to end 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering (talk · contribs) – Today it is my pleasure today to present Asilvering to the community as a candidate for adminship. Asilvering came to my attention with their perceptive participation at Articles for Deletion. I looked into their contribution history, and found a diligent editor with a focus on content. Asilvering has contributed to four GAs; has created more than 40 articles, on topics as varied as newspapers, prison buildings, artists, and suffragists; and has chipped away at improving sourcing and content on many other pages. Asilvering has been involved at WP:GAN, conducting nearly 30 careful reviews and helping coordinate the two most recent backlog elimination drives. And they have been active at AfC, an area that sorely needs attention from competent editors, and where the admin tools can only be an asset. In their interactions with other editors Asilvering was unfailingly cordial and constructive. They express their opinions, but are always willing to revisit their own position, which is essential to a successful admin. In short, Asilvering is a content-focused editor who can make productive use of the tools, and I hope you join me in supporting their candidacy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I’ve known Asilvering foremost as an editor—a translator, a reviewer, a copy editor, a bibliographer, and an author—but lately I’ve come to see them as an admin. Asilvering has shown excellent editor foundations from their early reviews and writings related to women in the Paris Commune. Asilvering’s user talk page shows their progression into more public fora assisting new editors both in the Teahouse and Articles for Creation with admirable bedside manner. Their solid track record at Articles for Deletion shows the proper mix of “getting it right” and guiding to consensus without vote-stacking. From discussions at WT:@ and on articles, I enthusiastically trust Asilvering’s temperament for making policy-based judgment calls, and more importantly, to admit where they aren’t clued-in enough but will learn. I hope you’ll agree that Asilvering has much more to offer these areas of the project if given the admin tools. czar 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Asilvering is an excellent editor and content creator who fully meets my criteria for what makes a good admin: being kind to newer and experienced editors alike, open to feedback and having a clue. One aspect not yet highlighted above is the work asilvering does to make the GA process more accessible to newer editors, for instance in creating a GAN backlog drive with a focus on new reviewers. This in combination with their good work at AfC and AfD makes me fully confident we can trust them with the mop. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted. I can also confirm that I have never edited for pay, and that I have never had any accounts other than this one. asilvering (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I've been quite content as an "ordinary editor" with some extra perms (AfC reviewer, NPP, page mover), but I've come to feel that I ought to volunteer to lighten the load on the folks with the mop. I already occasionally close AfD discussions, and could do more of that; the last couple of times I've poked my head in to RfD there have been a bunch of clear "delete" results I could have cleared out if I were a sysop; I am a generally sensible person (or so I imagine, anyway) and am more than happy to be aimed at problems that need to be sorted out by a generally sensible person equipped with admin tools. I am not particularly interested in the kinds of admin tasks that require heavy use of the banhammer (chasing sockpuppets, vandals, and so on), but never say never.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The noobs I helped along the way. No, but seriously: I remember fondly the people who were kind to me when I was new - though I doubt most of them remember me, since for them it was just an ordinary Thursday. I do what I can to pay it forward. To that end, I'm a WP:GTF mentor, I keep an eye on WP:TEA, and I handle WP:AFC drafts.

But I know that, conventionally, this is where I'm expected to foreground some content work. So I'll point readers at an article I recently rewrote from scratch, The Parson's Tale, which is the longest and most boring of the Canterbury Tales, and at a GA review I did recently on Émile Pouget, a revolutionary syndicalist whose slang-laced newspaper is rather more interesting than that.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: No, not really. I've disagreed with other editors any number of times, certainly (just ask czar). I've given a handful of responses at WP:3O, and helped to sort out disputes on various talk pages. But this hasn't risen to the level of "conflict", and I don't find it stressful. Given the areas in which I tend to work, it's much more likely that someone is going to feel stressed because of me - because I've declined their draft, given them advice they've found frustrating, or so on. In my opinion, the best way to avoid this is to be patient and kind. I like to think I'm successful at this more often than not.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Shushugah

4. Are there any Wikipedia:Contentious topics you would refrain from acting in an administrative capacity due to being Wikipedia:INVOLVED with your previous edit activity/participation?

A: Contentious topic area or not, I'm not going to be taking administrative actions where I'm WP:INVOLVED. Regarding contentious topics specicially, I haven't edited in any to such an extent that I'd consider the entire topic area involved by definition. I've worked on, for example, WP:GENSEX-related articles, but wouldn't consider myself to be capital-I "involved" with all of gensex because of that - that's a very broad topic area! And if there's a discussion that needs closing in any area of my specific editorial interest, I'll probably be far too obviously involved to do so - I'll be right there in the discussion myself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from TheNuggeteer

5. How did you come up with your name?

A: I'm afraid the answer to this question has been lost to time. I know that it took many tries before I came up with something that wasn't already taken. If you're asking what it means, well, that is an exercise best left to the reader; I have no idea. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The handle, however, pretty much resembles "a silver ring" if you think hard about it. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dr_vulpes

6. What got you into AfC and what do you enjoy the most about it?

A: I joined in the first place because I occasionally came across drafts that I thought were obvious accepts, but which had been stuck in the queue for a long time. I wanted to save them from purgatory! Then I got to helping drafts over the line when they weren't quite there yet - adding reviews to book drafts to show they pass WP:NBOOK, confirming WP:NPROF notability, and so on. What I most enjoy about it is that it's a very high-impact way to improve the encyclopedia in a short amount of time: a whole new article exists where one didn't before, just because I pressed a few buttons, and an author finally gets to see their work go live. It's always rewarding to find a gem in the slush pile or to help a confused newbie find some confidence. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Slgrandson

7. In terms of subject classifications, what are your strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedian?

A: Strengths: culture, history. Weaknesses: mathematics and logic, natural and physical sciences. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Conyo14

8. Hi there. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia, aside from AfC and AfD, you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?

A: There's my answer to the question above, but more specifically, I work on Russian revolutionaries, Communards, and Geoffrey Chaucer. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Kingsmasher678

9. As a new editor, what would you say your greatest failings where, and how have you improved on them?

A: Well, I was a pretty competent newbie: I grew up on RTFM, so before I began I read the fucking manual. This saved me from any number of potential failures. If I could go back and give my newbie self some advice, it would be to change my AfD approach from a depersonalized one ("doesn't meet WP:GNG") to a personalized one ("I can't find any coverage that shows WP:GNG"). The vibes at AfD used to be rather more combative, and from my early experiences there I very much got the impression that the softer approach was highly undesirable. That impression was wrong. It's better to treat others as colleagues interested in discussion, regardless of whether they do so for you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from LunaEatsTuna

10. Hi there! You mention some of your most significant article contributions; however, which would you say is your favourite and why?

A: Hm, I'd say the articles I mentioned earlier are more "representative" contributions than "most significant" ones. I'm fond of the short article I wrote on Eleanor Prescott Hammond. For favourites, well, don't tell the other articles, but I'm quite partial to Joseph Favre, an article mostly by Aymatth2, which I wrote the lead for and shepherded through GA on his blessing. It's "diabolically good". -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from LunaEatsTuna

11. How do you plan to balance your work as an administrator with continuing to mentor new users and participate in community discussions; do you plan on making any major changes regarding your contributions after you become an administrator?

A: I don't plan to make any major changes, but it probably won't take me too long to get interested in some backlog somewhere and set about learning how to deal with it. (Sorry in advance to the folks I would inevitably be peppering with questions.) First, though, there's the NPP backlog drive in September, and the GAN backlog drive in October. So I'll be busy with those for the next little while, and won't be likely to diverge much from the things related to AfC/AfD/NPP for the near future. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

12. How can editors with Good Article nominations expect a thorough review and not just another rubber-stamp approval in the upcoming backlog drive?

A: The co-ordinators will be checking every review before awarding it points, and won't be awarding full points for reviews they find insufficient. If you've received a review you think is unsatisfactory, whether as part of the backlog drive or not, the first step is to raise the issue (politely!) with the reviewer. If that doesn't work out for you, and the review is part of the backlog drive, I'd encourage you to ping one of the co-ordinators to the discussion for them to attempt to sort it out. Personally, I'd advise against going straight to WT:GAN with any concerns, since that can be a really intimidating experience for a reviewer, especially for a new reviewer who has made a mistake. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from McYeee

13. Are there any AfDs where you regret not !voting keep or regret not closing as keep?

A: I left this open for a while in case something would come to me, and it hasn't. So that's a no. During an AfD, you can simply revise your !vote if you change your mind or new sources are found, and a single !vote is unlikely to sway the whole discussion unless it's really quite in-depth and persuasive, in which case I expect I'd be very unlikely to change my mind at some point in the future. I'm sure there have been occasions where I didn't !vote keep and evidence was later brought up in the AfD that would have changed my mind, but I never noticed it for whatever reason; I don't really think this is an occasion for regret, since those kinds of votes tend to get everyone thereafter agreeing with them, so the article gets kept in the end. (Anyone who thinks they have evidence that would change my mind in an AfD is welcome to ping/reply directly.) And as a non-admin closer, I only have access to non-delete close options in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Sennecaster

14. Would you feel confident in using sysop tools to handle copyright violations and potential blocks?

• Links for Asilvering: Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Asilvering can be found here.

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

1. Support Great candidate, answers to questions are satisfying. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Dekimasuよ! 09:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support great addition to the mop holders! Looking forward to all their great work. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as nom. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Good candidate. ResonantDis_tortion 09:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support No red flags. Mox Eden (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Please continue to help us with the AfD when you gain admin permmission. I would love to have more admins patrolling AfDs, so here's my vote Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Good candidate – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support with gusto! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong support Asilvering is not only a prolific content creator, they also are a strong communicator and make Wikipedia a welcoming space for new editors. Their activities in Good Article Nomination drives are largely thankless, but improve our content significantly and guide new/regular editors alike along the nuances of source verification, and other core policies of Wikipedia. Their lack of hostile conflicts while editing in contentious areas and making rounds at WP:ANI show the kind of demeanor and candor all admins ought to strive for. Thank you for volunteering. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Has clue; many. Civil. 'nuff said. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13. Seems trustworthy and sane. Quite impressed with their work in organizing GAN drives. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 10:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Asilvering is great to work with and they'll make a good admin. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, has a clue and thoughtful in my experience, with the willingness to do mop-type work. CMD (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I've seen asilvering around before. Congrats on your RfA 😁--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, knows where the bodies are buried and pays the dues on time. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support yes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support as nom czar 11:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Why not? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Good candidate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support- Absolutely!   Aloha27  talk  12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support solid candidate. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per comment below. Sohom (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
26. Excited support, a great candidate who would do well with the extra tools. Thank you for standing for consideration! Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support of course. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Going to do fine in closing AfDs and doing other usual admin stuff.—Alalch E. 13:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per nomination – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
30. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
32. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
33. ASilveRing has a clue and is definitely not a jerk. So, why not? Best, Reading Beans 14:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support: I'd have nommed this user myself had I been aware they were willing to run (shame on me for not asking first). I think of them as one of the core pillars / members that help to keep AfC going, which you can see based on the numbers of drafts they work on, the help they provide at the reference desk, and their discussions at the WT:AFC. I recruited them to NPP based on this type of work they were doing and man I'm happy I did because they've been excellent there as well. As if that wasn't enough content work, they've also worked to help promote four GAs, which is four more than I had when I ran! To pile on further, they're also set to help coordinate their third GAN backlog drive in October. Their temperament, patience, knowledge, and willingness to help is EXACTLY what we want out of candidates. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support per noms. I haven't had much dealings with this user but I have noticed some of their contributions. It looks like they will make good use of the mop. Knitsey (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support yup, know them mostly from AfC and a quick scan of other work shows no reason not to give them a mop. KylieTastic (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 15:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, Seems to be the right fit for the role. I feel like I have encountered them and that it was positive, but I am not sure where. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
40. Sensible, trustworthy, will use the tools to benefit the project and the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I think they will make an excellent administrator, no hesitations about this nom! Thanks for volunteering your service! Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support no concerns from me. Mccapra (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, no concerns from where I'm sitting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support: A remarkable editor with a deep wealth of content-building knowledge. A good addition to the admin pool. Your levelheaded character deserves special appreciation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. I've always seen them as a voice of reason in discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Seems like a fine candidate to me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Even a cursory glance at earliest edits assuaged all fears. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Always great interactions with them. Good candidate to hold the mop. Raladic (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Reads the instructions, communicates kindly, positive demeanour, hard worker. Will be a great asset with the mop, and wield it well. Folly Mox (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
50. Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
51. No concerns. I sure appreciate your willingness to pitch in here, and to go through RfA to be able to help out! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
52. Very good editor, appreciated his responses to my comments. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
54. Civil, helpful, kind; just a fantastic editor. Beyond excited to pass the WP:BATON to you, asilvering :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support trust the nominators, so it's a support from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support – I've seen asilvering around and they've always been helpful. :) Easily meets my criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support: No issues. C F A 💬 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
58. Respect for your RTFM answer and thank you for building articles about women. Acalamari 16:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support: No concerns, helpful editor. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support: Appears to be the sort of admin we need. Deor (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. I've found asilvering to be nothing but helpful and professional, and I hold their editoral contributions in high regard. The project would benefit from them applying the tools in the areas they've already engaged in, and I trust that they will act with the appropriate level of caution in areas that they have not. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
62. Delighted to support a thoughtful editor who can see things from multiple perspectives, and who models good behavior for others. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
64. Daniel (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support per everyone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Absolutely. Excellent candidate. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 17:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
67. SilverLocust 💬 18:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Everything looks good here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
70. I don't think i've ever used the "thought they were" cliché, and it wouldn't be true here, either; what i can definitely say is "they certainly should be", so support. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Definitely a positive to the project and a good candidate for the tools. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Move that the secretary cast one ballot ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Why not? Great candidate! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Leijurv (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support, easily. A well-qualified candidate with no concerns. Thank you for stepping up! Sdkb ^talk 19:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Seems a good translator and content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support per nom ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support, noticed the RfA announcement on my watchlist, and this is one of the most cut-and-dry cases of a good candidate I've seen. DrowssapSMM 20:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Sure, why not. Good luck with the mop! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 20:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Great candidate. I know the editor from Afd for an age. Always a well-balanced and considered response. Well-deserving. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support – Looks like a very good editor and content creator, with quite a bit of good work in administrative areas like AFD. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. A very strong candidate. Someone I've seen around, and have a good impression of. Fine content work, respectful of other editors, and someone I can trust to read the manual. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Well-qualified. Thanks for stepping up. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support A highly qualified candidate. I enjoyed reading about Eleanor Prescott Hammond and Joseph Favre. Well written articles about fascinating people. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90. I don't know this candidate, so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support In my experience, asilvering has always been respectful and professional and would make a good admin. -Riley1012 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Good answer to my question. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - bravo, good luck!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - A good candidate, creator of content, helpful and with a good attitude. All the best! Alan Islas (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. – TCMemoire 23:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. No concerns- thought you were one already!GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. No concerns here, will do a great job with the tools. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Thanks for all your work. Good luck! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support as per nomination. HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 00:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support I've run into them from time to time and have appreciated their input. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Great experience!!! Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 00:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
104. While I have no direct experience with the candidate, their answers to the questions seem fine and the specifics in several of the supports are effusive. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Trustworthy candidate, will benefit the project with the tools. Positive content contributions are a plus. Spencer^T•C 01:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. Incredible AfD record. Thank you for stepping forward to make our community a better place. Ventric (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support (edit conflict) I really appreciate their work in the GAN backlog drives. I think they would make an excellent admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Clearly works very hard and can only be a net positive. cyberdog958^Talk 02:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
109. Sport Panini! • 🥪 02:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Every reaction I remember with Asilvering has been positive. I would like more admins with the potential for good. Soni (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. I asked my question out of curiosity; whatever the answer is will not affect my judgment that Asilvering will be a good admin. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Have been a great asset to the AfC project. No doubt will be a great asset to the admin corps as well. – robertsky (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
115. 👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support has done a fine job with GA work, including coordinating GA drives. No concerns that I can see. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support No major flaws! Good candidate! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
118. Obviously😊. GrabUp - Talk 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - Qualified candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Extremely-demely strong oppose - I like to be the devil's advocate (jk) {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 06:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I'm designating myself as a monitor for this RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, TLC! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people take all the easy jobs, ha ha! Carrite (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Running a GAN drive is a lot of mopping for very little thanks. CMD (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and questionable return on investment. One might stay that 10 pretty good articles are more valuable (to readers) that a GA. Just sayin' Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Smokefoot, GA standards are pretty low. Any article that doesn't meet them probably isn't "pretty good". Also, people who don't have their work reviewed from time to time generally aren't going to be as good at writing on Wikipedia overall. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a reasonable criticism of FAC but not GAN. if the content is reasonably good and all sourced, it will easily pass gan. (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a contra example, I give you History of penicillin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  UC is a wonderful reviewer, but one that often goes above and beyond the simple GA criteria; I would not discount GAN as a process because of one overly strict review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think an 11,000 word article about one of the most complex subjects is representative. With that said, it's generally considered inappropriate when reviewers expect good article nominators to do a bunch of reference formatting, so a good chunk of that review should have been shaved off anyway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That was no GA review from UndercoverClassicist, that was effectively a dry run for FA. Not surprised Hawkeye7 pulled it. 2.28.124.91 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a good candidate based on initial impressions. I just wish they'd had been in a conflict at least once so we knew how they would react under stress. But we can't hold that against them. Polygnotus (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to say that I think their lack of any conflict gives a major indication on how they conduct themselves on the project. While it's true that most of us will experience something from time to time (something that we'd even consider not our fault), every time I've interacted with the candidate or reviewed any of their work and interactions with others, they conduct themselves very professionally and always maintain a focus on the project, policies, and facts. If I may quote the nomination, "In their interactions with other editors Asilvering was unfailingly cordial and constructive." This alone indicates to me, above anything else, that they would wield the mop in a professional manner that we ask of our admins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True. Based on a quick skim they seem to have carefully avoided the major danger zones. Could be a good sign, could be a bad sign, but in any case it makes it more difficult for me to form an opinion on their suitability. I enjoyed reading about The Queer Art of Failure. Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i thought you were joking about hoping they'd been in a conflict... ltbdl☃ (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I genuinely believe Asilvering's lack of conflicts is a very strong indication of how they will carry themselves in all scenarios which is a rare quality, but there are plenty of recent admins who didn't have apparent conflicts to point to, only for them to react poorly and differently when they found themselves in a distressing and new situation. In general, disengaging and cooling off are good advice, but not always easy things specifically for an admin to follow. (Not excusing it, but trying to understand what I have observed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Impressionistically, good impressions in discussions all over the place; no yellow or red flags. If I see them in some article or project page in my watchlist, I know the right thing has been done (or a good opinion has been given), so I don't have to go investigate, if I'm busy elsewhere. When voting comes around in a few, will look into it in a more grounded fashion, but for now, nihil obstat. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we still doing the two day wait thing? I do not need time to think about this one :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Last one before the trial period ends, assuming this doesn't snow out :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank goodness for that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's hope so, hoping it's not a NOTNOW as well. George Ho (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a good candidate for me, as I often see him/her in the AfD let's just see how he/she answer the questions before deciding. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like I can cross a name off the list of people who I've been wanting to pressure into RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• You had me at "here we go". Thank you for stepping up and braving through this process. Looking forward to having you join the ranks of mop-pushers. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I know asilvering through AfC where they not only provide thoughtful feedback, both to submitters and about the process at AfC talk, they also consistently improve drafts by finding sources, expanding them and doing cleanup. In general, I would describe them as a very engaged editor in areas in which they are involved whether that be helping new editors, GAN, AfD, etc. I have no doubt they will be a thoughtful engaged admin as well. S0091 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Asilvering's work as a content creator, translator, reviewer, and drive coordinator in the GA-sphere has been phenomenal. A shout out to their participation at WP:Women in Green. In evaluating their ability to stay cool in tough situations, I'm mainly looking at their participation in this AN discussion from last year, in which they make obviously knowledgeable comments that balance a user's good-faith enthusiasm with the disruptive effects of her actions. Asilvering manages to be civil while not shying away from insightful criticism. Their comments were cited and appreciated by multiple other users. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed.—Alalch E. 15:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. (Thirded? Whatevs...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm super excited about this nomination. The only thing that bothers me is that I didn't get to be a nominator! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Asilvering is a great editor who has gained a lot of experience pretty quickly, has strong knowledge of policy, is dedicated to helping out newcomers, and has an attitude that is basically perfect for an admin. I think I'm leaving town the day !voting opens, but I'll make sure to stop somewhere I still have signal so I can register a support. Folly Mox (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good to me!--A09|(talk) 16:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never had a bad interaction with them and I do think they are more than qualified for adminship. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I know we aren't !voting yet, but this candidacy is one that I could stand by. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very glad to see another strong RfA candidate. I've had plenty of positive interactions with them but would like to see them respond to technical questions related to adminship merely out of curiosity rather than concern. Best of luck; I am pretty sure where my !vote's going. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the great, active members of WP:Growth team features, as evident by talk page discussions. In fact, I recently had a pleasant discussion with them. Panini! • 🥪 18:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Evacuate the city, engage all defences and get asilvering a mop. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very happy to see a rationale for adminship so strongly grounded in content improvement. "Weaknesses: mathematics and logic" makes me sad, personally, but should not affect the case; we can't be all things to all people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• We (understandably) can't just say "hell yeah", but content looks fine, not a jerk, has a clue, and good job with the GAN backlog drives. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I was left unimpressed by the only interaction I remember having had with the candidate. Evidently, I didn't seek to resolve all the differences, having got the admin intervention I was seeking. This would appear to be the perfect use case for the trial format. What do others think about what happened there? I would have been very unhappy indeed if the candidate was then an admin. On the other hand, maybe it's small potatoes if they're an outstanding candidate in every other way, as the rest of the comments seem to suggest. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When I got NPP permissions I had to do a week worth of training, for AfC the training and expectations are much lower. For example compare the two flow charts for NPP and AfC. In spirit I'm right there with you, it is frustrating when lower quality articles get through AfC. Especially when the sources are in a language I don't know so I can't just fix it myself. But I feel that the way Asilvering handled that interaction was pretty chill and professional. I've had worse interactions on AfD over much lower stakes issues. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with the manner in which they responded. I was/am concerned by the substance of their arguments. As you say, AFC is a very low bar and we should expect AFC to make mistakes. When I bring something up to the community explicitly because I believe AFC has failed in the particular case, I expect the community to look into why AFC failed if it failed. That the candidate argued that AFC had not failed, that it was a perfectly fine article to promote to mainspace, and further, that if they'd found it had been declined, they would reprimand the reviewer and promote it to mainspace themselves, that's a serious cause for concern for me. They did not need to comment in that thread, but they chose to do so to say that it was a perfectly fine article. It was not. It was the kind of article that led me to investigate the contributors to that article, resulting in blocks for the creator and their various socks, and still further, investigation of one of the AFC reviewers, and discovery of almost a dozen UPE/COI articles that they had created or approved, an external website they were using to fabricate sources and a decently sized sockfarm of their own. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since we're here, I took a look through User:Asilvering/AfC log this morning. They do a significant volume of AfC (sometimes a hundred a month) and I don't have stats on the ratio of Accept versus Decline or Reject.

  I got caught up in copyediting and citation repair during review, but the Accepts seemed reasonable with maybe a few questionable choices. The most recent redlinked Accept is from June of 2023. I counted three in total, one of which was G5ed, one of which was G11ed, and one of which was AfDed. There are a few bluelinked Rejects as well, one of which Asilvering personally Accepted a few weeks later. Another bypassed AfC by replacing a redirect with the draft content.

  Asilvering has a habit of tagging Accepts with {{sources exist}}, which meets the letter of – and indeed, is – WP:V. The ANI discussion linked above displays without articulating explicitly the position that claims in an Accepted draft should be verified, a higher standard than verifiable (the policy). I do see it as a philosophical difference, which I'm unable to distinguish from concern [over] substance of arguments, but I'm prepared to accept that some people are able to make that distinction.

  There are a few AfC choices that I (who has never worked AfC) personally wouldn't have made: I would have Declined this as {{AI-generated}} (probably against some policy or guidance, which could very well be a point in favour of Asilvering's judgement / knowledge), and I don't think I would have Declined as non-notable Conquest of Cheng-Han by Jin, but the content is fine where it is at Huan Wen § Campaign against Cheng-Han.

  I do come here with a preexisting favourable opinion towards Asilvering, and the sinews of Wikipedia power dynamics are social capital, free time, and persistence. I ran out of time before I did a super thorough review, but nothing I saw gave me reason to question the candidate's judgement. Biased and procrastinating, Folly Mox (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me: social capital, free time, persistence, . These comprise the sinews of Wikipedia power dynamics. Apologies for the oversight. Folly Mox (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed the linked discussion, and find nothing concerning in it. It appears that you disagree with Asilvering about whether or not AfC reviewers ought to consider factors beyond notability, but their view is widely held, to the extent that it is directly and explicitly endorsed by the AfC reviewer instructions. No wikiphilosophy with that level of consensus should be considered disqualifying at RfA, and I concur with Dr vulpes that their attitude in the thread was perfectly fine. Sdkb ^talk 05:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I do not have a philosophical difference with them. If you read the full page instead of just the section that you linked, you will see that there are many additional considerations that should result in an AFC fail even if a topic is notable (not that the topic was established to be notable): Step 1 has quick fail for "advertisements". In step 2, the draft would be declined for insufficient verification. In step 3, it would be declined as not meeting BLP requirements, and not adhering to a neutral point of view. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, I read the whole thing and it still comes off like a philosophical difference. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability only sets the low bar that content "must be verifiable". It's the norm and widely accepted best practice to cite reliable, independent, secondary sources with inline citations. In that discussion regarding, for example, being a "research fellow at the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland" I see one person saying it does not meet WP:V because the cited source doesn't state it, and another person saying that it does because checking the Unversity's website shows him "listed as a fellow". Those both come off as plausible readings of the policy. I also don't see them describing the article as "perfectly fine" but as fixable. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As an AfC reviewer, the standard I was taught is that we accept an article if (1) it would probably survive an AfD on the strength of the sources in the article (which means, incidentally, that occasionally accepting articles that get AfD'd later is fine) and (2) the article is not hopelessly promotional or otherwise so bad as to be worse than nothing. If there's an issue with this, the issue is with the AfC criteria, not with asilvering. (The other thing I was taught, by example, is that unless you stick only to the easiest most clearcut cases, people will yell at you both for letting through too many articles and for not letting in enough.) Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Count me as someone who (used to be) an active AfC reviewer and who agrees with asilvering on the mertis here. Mach61 16:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with asilvering that the article should have been sent to AfD: should not have been redraftified after two independent AfC acceptances. —Alalch E. 06:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues AFAICS. Meets my personal yardstick for meeting the qualifications to wield the mop.   Aloha27  talk  14:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I plan on supporting. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reserving a spot for myself. Nothing bad so far. Mox Eden (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Good candidate, would likely support if I could. user:squorki | talk 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for volunteering. This nom makes a lot of sense to me. I've seen asilvering around at AfC and AfD and at a few random articles where our interests must have overlapped. They seem skilled, well-informed, level-headed, thoughtful and good natured. No red flags whatsoever. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding your answer to Q1, I totally get your desire to avoid wielding the banhammer and I hope you'll take a look at WP:DYK as a more satisfying way to use your mop. The last step of the approval process requires an admin and we're chronically short-staffed in that area. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]