Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Balloonman (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 6 September 2008 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Synergy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/6/5); Scheduled to end 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Synergy (talk · contribs) - Once again, here I am, a little over three months later. I generally feel that after reviewing the concerns raised during my last RfA, I have worked on all of the issues. There was, I believe, one instance in June that an MfD was contested and overturned. This was my last mistake. I have continued to close AfD's, but very rarely have they been as speedy keep per snow. Since my last RfAs I have helped out with a few GA prospects (as noted in question 2), finally tested out AWB, and started creating more articles (see my activities page). I had also begun helping to fix malformed requests at CHU (one of the reasons I did this was because of the assumptions I had made during EVula's RfB) and learned a great in the process. I stopped when I noticed a bot doing most of the work I was doing.

I withdrew my last RfA for personal reasons, discussed it with a few admins, and in the end I took one admins advice and followed it.

For about a month, I was "adopted" by LaraLove. It was less like an adoption and more of a Q and A approach. We did a lot of talking and she gave me general advice on my weaknesses, my strong points, and how to focus. I only hope that I've followed her advice to the best of my ability, as the communication has had a lasting effect on me.

So why do I need the tools? There are numerous reasons why I could benefit from aquiring these buttons. To name just two:

  • I've been on patrol with DragonflySixtyseven at the far end of the new pages log a number of times (to quickly clarify, this is where articles that have slipped by the new page patrollers remain for approx. one month. We patrol at the far end in the hopes of catching these bad articles before they leave the log.) to work on the buffer. Often enough I find many articles that don't meet our standards after 30 days.
  • For a few months now, I've been helping to maintain MfD until the bot is up and running again (this bot might also be run by me, as soon as nixeagle is finished with the coding). MfD is not a popular spot, and there are plenty of times where a discussion will go unclosed for many, many days. I usually have to solicit the help of an admin to take care of it, so I can close and archive the debates.

Overall, I feel like I've improved, I'm ready to assume the role, and with this request I would like to know if the community feels the same. Synergy 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The areas I will be most active in are AfD, AIV, UAA, and RFPP. I might go back to CHU (I used to partially clerk there) and if I get the tools, USURP. Also, if and when the merge takes place at SSP2, I plan on applying for a clerk in training position.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I just recently joined a spectacular project (spotlight) a few weeks ago, at the request of another editor. I've learned a great deal in just a short period of time working with these editors. So far, since I joined this group, we've managed to get at least one article to GA (with the help of an amazing copyeditor) and more on the way. I've found the idea of a group effort, working on one article at a time to be rather enjoyable and plan to continue working with them if this request is granted (and even if it doesn't).
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: I have indeed been in a few conflicts in my time, but nothing that causes me stress or has affected my editing since my last RfA. I usually try to remain as neutral, civil, and understanding of the editors opinions I am talking to. For instance, by looking at my talk page, you can see a few of the objections that were raised by my edits, and how I have handled it. I plan to be just the same now, as I am with extra buttons.

Optional questions I want to get out of the way

4. This is normally xeno's RfA question. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. I'd have to assume that an uninvolved admin has notified me (or I'm either browsing through the category or in the irc channel #wikipedia-en-unblock) at this point, since I wouldn't know of the request directly and it is likely that it would have already been declined given the ip's amendment of the unblock rationale from from ...you really are a cockfag to yo man i was just playing... Given that this is the case (that someone has informed me of this request in order to get my opinion), I believe I would be lenient and grant the unblock request. It may be hard for some editors to believe, but vandals can and are reformed. Once unblocked I would then watch over their edits possibly for a few days. After that, I would think that if there are anymore issues with this specific ip they would be reported to WP:AIV and reblocked by someone else with an increased duration.
5. Please describe/summarize why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 5a. ...an editor to be blocked?
  • A: To prevent any further unproductive or otherwise nonconstructive edits that are considered to be damaging to our editors, viewers or articles.
  • 5b. ...a page to be protected?
  • A: When there is edit warring by multiple users with no discussion on the articles talk page, then full protection is needed. If its only one editor causing the disruption, then a block might be more appropriate (see answer to 5a above). Semi protection is best used to prevent vandalism from ip's. This should be judged very carefully and according to the status of the article (is it a current event? is it on the main page? BLP? etc). In the instance that there is only one and sometimes (though rarely) two ip's vandalizing the article (as compared to possibly 3 or more ip's with constructive edits), then again, a block is more appropriate. In short, protection is on a case by case basis and should be judged according to the issue(s).
  • 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
  • A: By experience, the most common speedy deleted pages (and here I mean the fastest, not the top reasons) are those that are either attack pages, vandalism, patent nonsense or clear copyright violations. Generally, all other article pages should not be deleted so soon after being created (as there are times when new editors are still working on the article and notability might not be clear upon creation; this is where patience needs to be exorcised as well as the better judgment of admins). But by definition/usage, a speedy deletion is meant for a quick deletion of a page (article, redirect, template, category, etc.) without having to resort to an XfD (so basically, a clear cut deletion that does not require a discussion or community consensus).
  • 5d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
  • A: Rarely if ever. I believe this policy is here to remind us of two things: The first being that policies are descriptive and not prescriptive; that if common sense or your better judgment tells you to do something that might not be a common outcome and is likely to be controversial, yet at the same time improves the pedia, then by all means, be bold and fix or apply it. And second, that our policies are not fine tuned. Things change. If need be, we have to change them in accordance with common practice so we don't have a thousand decisions based on blanket IAR edits just for the sake of ignoring the rules.
Optional question by Gonzo fan2007
6 As much is lost when reading comments over the internet, was this comment a joke, or is this the reason you are going for RFA right now?
  • A: The comment was in fact a joke (I make them often). It was some strange coincidence that MastCell had said that while I was doing a bit of pre writing for this RfA. Once I noticed it, I felt compelled to say something.
Cool, I thought it was, but wasn't sure :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Protonk (talk)
7 Why does Wikipedia have a notability guideline? By this I mean, why in the philosophical sense, not "how did wikipedia come to have a notability guideline".
Optional questions by miranda
8. Why do you need the tools for USURP? Aren't bureaucrats the main ones who are supposed to use the tools for that action? Non-admins can clerk for USURP. Please explain why you need to be an admin for only USURP over non-admins?
  • A: The reason I chose to state my intent on working there, was because it runs so closely together with CHU. I'm not sure how much a non admin can do for the crats over there but one of the reasons you would need the buttons is when the username being requested has had edits but are not GFDL significant an can be deleted.
9. Have you made any substantial contributions to FAs/GAs/DYKs or content contributions?
  • A: No, I don't believe I have.
10. Looking back at the Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, I am worried about this edit, because the IP was trying to help out the effort. I am also worried about how you handled the situation. If the person says that he is a scholar in his field (and wishes to keep his anonymity), then let him be. Please explain your actions for warning the IP (who may or not be a collegiate scholar).
  • A: I did leave him be. The fact is, he was making changes that were going against consensus. He left long messages on a few of the contributors talk pages, and one was move to the Lafayette articles talk page. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, only one revert.
Question from Sandstein
11. Are you over 18 years old?


General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Synergy before commenting.

Discussion

  • I went ahead and provided the answers to some of the more common questions that are asked because I may not have enough time to respond to all questions during this RfA due to work (my job) related activity. I'd like to ask that someone please add in my two previous RfA's to the little box that should be there and adjust the end time to be more accurate once this is transcluded. Thanks. Synergy 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support I've interacted with this user on a number of occasions, and all I've seen is good work. I'm especially impressed by his boldness when closing XfDs. You have my full support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No question in my mind that Synergy is responsible, understands the needs of the community, and understands the role and limitations of an administrator. Avruch T 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Contributions will equal a net positive for the Community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support LittleMountain5 review! 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support- I see this user around quite a bit, and I've always been impressed with their edits. Excellent answers to the questions too. I have no issues about giving Synergy the tools. Reyk YO! 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — The article sourcing gruntwork that he does is extremely useful, the concerns from his last RfA have been addressed, the concerns from his first RfA have been tempered by significant experience, his talk and process contributions show an accessible and fairminded editor, and he doesn't seem to get into pissing matches or slapfights. The former maggot (does the name change mean he has graduated to fly status?) will make a good administrator. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support. Support for the answers to the questions, the weakness for his mainspace contributions, as pointed out by Giggy in opposition. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 04:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've worked with Synergy via Spotlight on the Lafayette article. I found his contributions to be helpful and on-point. Additionally, I have seen Synergy around on various noticeboards and am impressed with his clear and generally neutral postings. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support OK, so I have seen a few, erm, "dry" responses, but I get a sense of honesty which is refreshing. Thinks about things, which is a plus, and I am pleased about the mainspace contribs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a very sensible user, answers to questions are decent. Opposes don't bother me at all. The claim that he is inclusionist beyond reason makes no sense as Syn votes 'delete' just as much or more often than he votes 'keep' (at least as far as I looked; last 2 months). The other diffs presented by the opposer's worry me not at all; that article work is more than sufficent and (IMHO) and while they criticize him for clinging too tightly to policy they act like its Watergate that he once told someone something that is common knowledge but is contradicted by a tiny line that was written several years ago (yes the questions are denoted as 'optional questions' but are not treated as such, just see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2). - Icewedge (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support. I'm not a fan of candidates who use automated tools excessively immediately prior to an RFA, but in this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons and making ex-SynergisticMaggot an admin would be a net positive. Useight (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Looks good. Excellent answers to all parts of Q5. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Epbr123 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support ktr (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support - Wonderful interaction with the user! Best of luck, --Cameron* 10:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per my nom in his second RfA (as SynergeticMaggot). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No major concerns here. America69 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Net positive Dlohcierekim 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Icewedges response to iridecent got me. I'm more or less convinced at this point that Synergy would make a great admin, regardless of how minor his article work is.--KojiDude (C) 14:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Opposed last time, support this time. My concerns are alleviated. Also, per Koji above. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I'm going to go with my gut right now. I won't say that I am completely without concern, there are some issues that demonstrate some immaturity or areas for growth, but overall, I think he'll do a decent job. When he asked me to coach him, my initial question to him was "Why did he need it?"---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Nah, mainly per [1], as well as per Editorofthewiki and GlassCobra at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot 2. —Giggy 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing...per contributions? Also, Giggy, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that Synergy's views on policies, as evidenced by his answer 5d, have certainly changed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm opposing as his mainspace contributions are hardly significant (mostly AWB/typo fixing). The justification for this opposition is well outlined elsewhere. Since you point me to 5d, I point you to the fact that he starts off with a blanket statement ("Rarely if ever.") that goes on to contradict the rest of his answer. I also point you to the fact that it's one's actual actions, not the answers they give under in the RfA spotlight, that count. —Giggy 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way giggy. I know that my article work can never compare to your own, because you're just that good at it, where I am not. But I am learning more and more everyday. Synergy 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the compliment but think it misses the point. —Giggy 06:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per Fut.Perf. below. How comments such as "Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult?" can possibly not contain an obvious damaging inference (yes, it's not "directly explicit"... that's the point) is beyond me. Giggy (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but Oppose. Synergy is someone I have a number of different problems with, none of which are "killers" in themselves, but which together add up to "not enough to trust him", and a general feeling (right or wrong) that this is someone who has an over-rigid "policy is there to be enforced" mentality, except when it applies to him. I've gone through every AfD contribution of his from the whole of August, and I can't find one single example of him saying anything other than "keep", aside from a single "redirect" here; extreme inclusionism is all well and good, but there comes a limit. While (although I'd consider myself an inclusionist) I disagree with the hardline stance of, for example, DGG, I trust DGG to weigh issues fairly when closing XfDs, and to be honest – given the number of times I've warned Synergy about his inappropriate non-admin closures – I don't trust him at AfD, which is the first place he says he specifically wants to work. Yes, these were in the past, but they weren't "borderline" decisions; these were outright WP:ILIKEIT decisions, most notoriously speedy-closing this MfD as "keep". Only a couple of weeks ago, Synergy was explaining to a 'crat that "the questions aren't optional", despite the "You may wish to answer the following optional questions" at the top of every RFA/B. And the combination of "WP:IAR should be applied rarely if ever", coming from an editor who only a couple of months ago was posting unsourced fancruft grates on me. Sorry, but while Synergy is fine with the dot-the-i's-and-cross-the-t's side of maintenance, I don't trust him to exercise common sense in the Wikipedia space, which is where I suspect from his history he'll end up spending most of his time. – iridescent 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey iridescent, haven't talked to you in a while. Out of general curiosity I'd like to see which AfD's I've closed due to ilikeit. The only one you link, shows my final decision as delete. The article you called fancruft is actually not a band I listen to. I created it because they are on the same record label that I usually buy my cds on, and they didn't have an article yet clearly meet our criteria. Synergy 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, in response to your statement that "I've gone through every AfD contribution of his from the whole of August, and I can't find one single example of him saying anything other than keep" please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet turtles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Sized, while 2 is not exactly a lot you must also look at the context (which you noticeably did not provide): during the month of August Synergy closed maybe one hundred AfD's as keep but only voted to keep himself as far as I can determine 2 times; please explain how 2 delete, 1 redirect, and 2 keeps in one month is indicative of the kind of rabid inclusionism we should be afraid of.- Icewedge (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, has shown poor judgment on the few occasions I noticed him, most outrageously here (cf. background). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, comments such as "Incidentally, Diligent Terrier is an idiot"[2] do not inspire confidence in the candidate. EJF (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, Diligent Terrier is not an idiot. user:Everyme 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that comment was made by the candidate. Looking through maggot3's other posts it wouldn't appear (to me) to be the same person. Giggy (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a registered user at Wikipedia Review. Synergy 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Giggy in this instance. naerii 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per his unique comments and judgments on ANI.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I would oppose but I wonder if my judgment is clouded by my past encounter with this editor. I refer to what I felt was a hostile, insulting and uncommunicative response to my neutral at Gazimoff's RFA. Maybe this is his only such bout, and if so it wouldn't be fair to oppose for the time lightning struck and I happened to be involved. Gazimoff's RFA was clearly passing and I just wanted to note a concern. I think his behavior in that encounter directly contradicts his answer to Q3. He claims he tries to be understanding, yet when I attempted to talk to him, he was rude, explicitly uninterested in understanding what I was saying. He was even bothered by the idea that I'd try to explain my opinion on an RFA at that RFA. That's just about the opposite of an editor interested in understanding. --JayHenry (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, to be fair, this candidate has improved enormously since their last couple of RFAs, and I believe that they are a 'net positive' to the project, so I wouldn't feel right opposing. However, the diffs provided by User:JayHenry and User:Iridescent are worrying, so I can't support at this time either. Reserve the right to move into the Support column if the candidate can come up with some brilliant counterarguments though (and I hope they do!) Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. I won't be creating any counter arguments. JayHenry is right in what he says, for the most part. I let my emotions get the better of me around the time that Gazimoff went through RfA, and I took his comments too personal. I have since not let this happen. As for Iridescent... I currently have one article at AfD that I initiated as delete, and have made several delete votes. I'm only hoping that someone is able to notice these edits, instead of any attempts made by myself at arguing over whether I am a deletionist or an inclusionist. I'm still waiting on her to show me at least a few examples where I have closed AfD's in the manner in which she asserts that I do. Synergy 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I REALLY want to support... I really do. But the concerns above are enough to hold me back. This is a time where I really want to be pushed into the support column. Irridescents accusation of illusionist is pretty concerning.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral — You're a great Wikipedian, but with a lot to learn. The concerns above, particularly from Fut.Perf, are enough to prevent me supporting. Sorry and good luck. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out, and not just to you but for everyone, that the only reason I brought that conversation to FutPer's attention, was because he wished to block the user over it. Now, I supported a block, there was no question of it. I just felt that, he was taking things a little too personal when he announced on (either AN or AN/I) a thread that he wanted the user blocked based on his honor. To me, that was a bad blocking reason, so I talked it over with him. Apparently, I was wrong so I left his talk page at his request. The user went on to be blocked for something else entirely. :) Synergy 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Echoing others here. Generally yes, but not now. user:Everyme 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Synergy&oldid=236676684"