Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Synergy

Final (55/33/8); Closed as no consensus by WJBscribe at 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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".
  • A: We have notability to keep bad articles from poisoning Wikipedia. To give our readers what they are looking for, and improve upon our content.
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. Yet even if I did, while a member of spotlight, I do not want any recognition. Any recognition goes to the group, and not to one person.
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?
  • A: Sure am. And you can verify this by checking the last version of my recently deleted userpage.
Additional questions from Nichalp
12. You mentioned that you would be helping out on AFD, so I got a juicy test case for you. :) If you were the chosen to be the closing admin, I would like you to give me your analysis of this current AFD. Two-three lines should be sufficient.
  • A: As noted in the below section, I know nothing about the political side of this situation (and I'll add; nor the geographical quarrels). I was at first either going to decline, and say I'd let another admin handle it. Then I was going to go no consensus (the easy way out? I think thats the wrong decision though). Yet the word "occupied" is not NPOV, nor is the content. One article needs to remain, with all views, the rest as redirects to that one central article. So I would have to say I would delete it, then recreate it as a redirect. Protection I feel, is not yet needed until there are attempts at bypassing the closure (unless I've missed a huge discussion by non blocked editors saying they will recreate the article in the event that it gets deleted, then of course protection is needed). Also, it looks like you did a good job at the rewrite. Thats the type of article it should be redirected to.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

13. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: This question doesn't explain in which section the edit was made (for instance, if it was in the lead, it doesn't need a citation). I'll assume it is in one of the sections below. I would check the talk page and read the conversation that led to the consensus you mention. From there I should be able to determine if the consensus overrides the verifiable info. This info can be verifiable, but completely wrong for that specific page (in other words, it might be more suitable for a fork article, or it might be pure POV, and not suitable at all). On the flip-side, the consensus could be wrong, they might have overlooked something hence consensus can change. But seeing as the edit was reverted, I would do my best as an outside observer to explain BRD, and inform this new user that it is time for discussion.
14. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I'm going to have to use Sceptre for my disgruntled example (apologies Sceptre): Sceptre, at the time, was having what looked like a really bad day. His rollback was taken away, and he created approx 7-8 AfDs (it could have been more) to prove a point. Someone had requested on AN (or AN/I) that they be closed and I did most of them (a few were closed by another user, and I left one open because I knew it was one that was more than likely to be deleted). He posted to my talk page and I did in fact keep a cool head. As for my puzzled talk page post there was Sam Tan here. He asks very nicely if I could explain why I chose to keep the article, and I did my best (a very long paragraph) to explain why, and pointed him to where he can learn more and strike up a conversation.
15. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: No, my current activities will not decline (in fact they have grown since my last rfa I believe). I would imagine there will be one month that I would get used to the new buttons, and I would then adjust. Most my time in between RfA's was spent improving on my knowledge of the role of an admin. Once that was out of the way, I was going to learn DYK, ITN and GA.


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]
  • Thank you. My first instinct was to decline it, and let another admin who knows more about the political side deal with it. But I am still going to review the entire situation (the article, its talk page, the afd, the afds talk page, etc) and attempt to answer (hopefully before the afd closes). Synergy 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay but that rather means that a user now blocked for sockpuppetry i.e. a puppet master has !voted below, and not really that there "are sockpuppets at your rfa" which I would have understood to refer to multiple !votes by the same editor. At least as long you extend good faith to the newbie that showed up.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I'm not accusing anyone (other than the blocked user)of being a sockpupet. I just used the wrong tense (plural instead of singular). I only meant for someone to take notice. Synergy 13:53, 9 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]
  24. Strong Support - Have known editor for a while and have had only positive interactions with him. I have also found him to be very helpful, knowledgeable and reasonable in interactions with me and with others that i have seen him interact with. Is someone i would like to see have the tools. Lucifer (Talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I have no issues with the user, and the opposers haven't brought up anything sufficient to make me oppose. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Wow, yes. SQLQuery me! 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No negative interaction. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I've had a lot of interactions with Synergy, and watched his editing on wiki. I don't see any reason for him to not have the tools. --Coffee // talk // ark // 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Following in Balloonman's footsteps here. Also to help even out what I consider a bit of a pile-on for non-deal-breaking reasons. user:Everyme 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Links from Wikipedia Review don't convince me that a candidate is untrustworthy. What matters most is Synergy's on-site contributions, and from what I can tell they are sterling. Steven Walling (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with Synergy, I really get the impression that he knows what he's doing and could make great use of admin tools. I waited a while to see if anything was brought up to concern me in the opposes, but most of them are either based on differing criteria (I personally feel that major article-building experience is a fairly irrelevant requirement for an otherwise-clued-up admin candidate, but many others disagree), or interpretations of situations that I don't see a problem with. Overall I have no concerns, and as far as I can see nearly all of his XfD closes have been pretty sensible. ~ mazca t | c 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I recognize the reasons for other editors to oppose below, but I have interacted with this user on Wiki, esp on IRC. I think Synergy will be a net positive to the project. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please login or register for an account before voting in an RfA. Avruch T 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, on my friend's comp...apparently cookies expired right when I clicked submit. replacing w/ my signature. wow Avruch, that was fast!!!! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Hello, my brother-in-law got his head stuck in a tuba and I need to buy a blowtorch to get him...oh, wrong queue. All seriousness aside: Support -- I have no qualms about this candidate's ability and intelligence (my brother-in-law, however, is another matter). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: Contribs seem solid enough. Sure, the user isn't perfect, but who among us is? The relevant question to ask is: will this user (accidentally or otherwise) cause significant harm if given the tools? I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe that this user will, therefore I support. Oren0 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. My interactions with Synergy have been nothing but positive, and he seems to have a firm grasp of policy. If this RfA is successful, I suspect he'll be very productive as an admin. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Oren0. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support due to a great experience with this user recently. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support i see this user alot on wikipedia. HereFord 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. As much as I do dislike Synergy's inappropriate XFD closings, I don't see a way how can that make him a bad admin. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...? Do you see the contradiction in that statement? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Seems solid enough; makes mistakes, but nothing alarming. - grubber (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support Some misgivings, but overall net positive NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support : Net positive. Mainly because the oppose reasons still doesnt convince me. ( Still researching ... ) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I dislike Synergy. I find his overeagerness to close XfD's early distasteful and misguided, and, as Eric the Red below was trying to point out with misplaced sarcasam, he just really rubs me the wrong way. However, he just wants to do good work for Wikipedia. I don't think we should begrude a good-faith user that. HiDrNick! 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Can't believe I haven't supported yet! To be honest, I read through the entire request, and I understand where some of the opposers are coming from, but I honestly don't believe they're big enough reason to warrant an oppose. I am, however, pretty disgusted at Sandstain's oppose (disclosure: we have had disagreements on RfA talk, but there you go... I'm not the only one who thniks this, judging by the long thread after his oppose). I hope the closing bureaucrat makes a fair decision here (and provides a rationale as per Synergy's request on the noticeboard). Some of the opposes here (i.e. EJF's) make accusations about Synergy that have no evidence, and appear to be about another user, which I think is grossly unfair. how do you turn this on 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support as last time. However, I'd advise you give heed to some of the opposes below. In particular, Fut. Perf's. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support This user knows what can be done, needs to be done and I see no reason that he should not be granted with adminship. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support – Caulde (speak) 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I seem to rarely agree with syn/mag about anything, and yet, he continues to be a good guy. Maybe I really am the bad guy. While disagreeing, Synergy remains civil in his discourse, good with communication. Has some quirks, but we all do. Support, net asset. Keeper ǀ 76 14:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is the bad guy. Just because we disagree on x amount of wikipedia related issues does not mean we cannot edit together. Its what makes wikipedia a diverse group, and I suspect, why we all choose to help with this project. Synergy 17:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. We don't even agree on my support rationale. I rest my case :-) Keeper ǀ 76 17:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support; nothing to indicate to me that the nominated will abuse the tools. Celarnor Talk to me 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. long time since I've commented on one of these, know this user from WP:SPOTLIGHT, does a good job with articles. —— nixeagle 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Why not? Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I wasn't originally going to comment in this RfA, but since it is going right down to the wire, I decided to. My interactions with Synergy have been largely positive, and none of the issues brought up in the oppose section particularly worry me, but there are quite a few of them. I just don't think Synergy is going to run off and do something stupid, so I guess I'll support this. If you do pass, please take it slow for the first couple of weeks until you get a handle on what you're doing. J.delanoygabsadds 00:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I think that, on the balance, well worth the risk. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Nah, mainly per [2], 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]
    I went through all of his !votes to AFD in July and this is what I found: Delete Delete Keep Strong Keep Indifferent Merge Delete Speedy Delete Redirect Keep, merge, or userfy --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:51, 7 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]
    Oppose, comments such as "Incidentally, Diligent Terrier is an idiot"[3] do not inspire confidence in the candidate. EJF (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Struck per clarification below and this. I apologise whole-heartedly for any harm caused by my presumptuousness, and regret that this oppose had to stand so long. EJF (talk) 19:54, 12 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]
  4. I agree with Giggy in this instance. naerii 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per his unique comments and judgments on ANI.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry, but it's just too risky given your abusive comments and lack of understanding of policy, etc. SpecialK 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose - Stronger article building needed, too soon since your last RfA attempt for me and incivil comments. — Realist2 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And, answer to #8 doesn't show me that you need the tools. miranda 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose. Then called Synergetic Maggot, this user speedy closed a controversial MfD after only two hours. He then left an increasingly bizarre and often belligerent series of comment on my talk page and on his own.[4] [5] I don't object to the fact that he screwed up. We're not looking for perfection in administrators. What most concerned me, however, was that at no point did he ever seem to get the point that he'd screwed up. Indeed, just a few hours after being told that his speedy close was out of line, he added the following text to his user page:

    I believe that if an XfD is found to be frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith, it should no longer take place. I frequently close them on this basis, but not on this basis alone. If others can delete pages, that are not backed by current policy or guidelines, then others can keep based on good old fashion rationale.

    The clear implication was that, despite being told otherwise by multiple editors, he still believed that the MfD in question was "frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith." In my view a user is unfit for administratorship if he or she believes that belligerence and bravado are the correct responses when their mistakes are pointed out to them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jbmurray. Below I point out to GlassCobra that I did in fact admit it was a mistake in the third sentence of my opening statement. Just thought I'd point this out to you. :) Synergy 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So it takes three months and an RfA before you can admit to a mistake? Not impressed. Especially when you could have easily and graciously dealt with the issue at the time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admitted it less than one month after it happened in my editor review. Synergy 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sorry, but I think that all these opposes offer good reasons for you not to become an administrator. Being an editor is one thing, being a sysop is another. I think you need to gain more maturity on the site and just keep all your anger inside you when you're annoyed. Civility is a huge thing on RFA. I'd like to support, but too many things the Diligent Terrier comment are forcing me to hold back for right now. —Sunday Scribe 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Can't support here. Synergy is still closing XfDs when he shouldn't be, even after several editors brought it up as concerns in his last RfA. Further, even though I'm not as strict on requiring content contribution, the total lack of involvement in this area does influence my decision. GlassCobra 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey GC. I'd like you to provide a few diffs at your convenience. You say I am still closing XfDs that I shouldn't be. Which ones are you talking about? In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed (which was the MfD everyone is linking from June and was a mistake, as I said). Synergy 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're lying, Synergy. About 10 hours before you created your RfA you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (second nomination). Days before that you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PROVEIT and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WilliamWQuick. Clearly, the last XfD you closed was not in June; I have a hard time believing you can't remember the ones you closed 24 hours ago. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggy, friend. I never said that I stopped closing XfDs. I've closed many since my last RfA. But none of them have been overturned. None of them were closed wrong. And none of them, since the June MfD have hit my talk page with opposition. I'm not lying giggy. But I think this is where we stop talking about all of this. You're just a bit too hostile at the moment. Very best regards. Synergy 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed". You, at 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC). The condescending tone is appreciated. Giggy (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Well that was my fault for not specifying what I meant. I will attempt to fix it: "In my opening statement (I believe its the third sentence), I made mention of the last XfD I closed wrong (I bolded where I added the word I should have). Apologies if that was confusing. I would never come here and tell everyone that I have completely stopped closing XfD's. And point them to my talk page no less in one of my answers! ;p Synergy 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The issues that concerned me in the last RfA haven't gone away. Adding to that, iridescent's analysis really worries me. So oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Thank you for answering my question. I am of the opinion, though, that administrators should have substantial content creation experience, which it appears you still lack. Also, the tone and substance of your personal website that is linked to in a deleted version of your old userpage is of concern to me, because it is not how someone I would like to be in charge of anything would choose to present him- or herself to the world. Thank you for your understanding.  Sandstein  06:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean you are partly opposing me because of my personal beliefs? That website is outdated and I had to have an independent admin even locate it for me, because I was not aware that I linked it to my userpage in 2006. Synergy 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I have no opinion about the merits of your beliefs (insofar as I understand them at all), and I am, frankly, not interested at all in these matters. But this discussion is an assessment of your character as relating to your suitability for a position of responsability (unfair and subjective though it may be), and I do have the a feeling that a person with the traits that I look for in an admin would not publish that sort of personal website. I would react in the same way to a hypothetical personal website featuring, e.g., dancing Teletubbies, titles set in blinking yellow fifty point Comic Sans, or twenty-page ALL-CAPS rants about obscure details of string theory. That aspect is not determinative, anyway; the lack of content contributions and some of the other concerns above are.  Sandstein  13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'd like to know further, why you mentioned it? That website, which is still up (since I have since lost the password, and cannot delete it) is my past religious or otherwise philosophical views. You said it was a concern, and I only wanted to know more. I am of the opinion that ones personal views (and mine are obviously not of a fundamental nature) have nothing to do with editing, or their candidacy. Synergy 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that I have answered your question in my post of 13:55, above. If that does not satisfy you, I hope that the following text taken from WP:MOP, the adminship policy, will help: "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role."  Sandstein  14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing based on one's religious and philosophical beliefs is pretty lame. Regardless of whether or not those are his current beliefs, or whether or not you agree with such beliefs, is irrelevant to adminship on this site. Synergy, just let this be it. He can't answer your question because there is no good reason for bringing it up here. Jennavecia (Talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding Lara here. Not only is it lame, but it is rather regrettable to oppose based on someones personal beliefs and their expression of such. Also, the "Oh i think your personal beliefs are despicable, but thats not really why i am opposing, even though i did say that" argument is rather weak. Everyone has a right to express their views in whichever way they like, as long as they are not disrupting or being otherwise uncivil. Ironically it is sandstein himself who is being narrow minded and disrespectful of others by saying that they should not be publishing their religious beliefs, esp if they conflict with his. (No, i have not seen the website, and it most likely is something i would not agree with myself, but i respect others assertion of their views). Lucifer (Talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Treat others the way you want to be treated! I'm relatively certain that's in The Bible!--KojiDude (C) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I obviously dont intend for this comment to be taken 100% seriously[reply]
    The reason for your oppose is completely on prejudice on Synergy's religion, not for any of his actions on Wikipedia, I find it disgusting, frankly. It's none of your business what his religion is and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know what religion you belong to (I have a guess), but I'm a Christian and according to my beliefs I'm not to judge others. He has a right to believe in any religion he wants to, my religion doesn't affect my editing, show me how Synergy's religion has affected his. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I am not opposing the candidate because of his beliefs. I do not care about his beliefs (and I myself am not a religious person). I am opposing (in small part) because he runs a website that I believe reflects poorly on his ability to communicate issues that matter to him in a professional, mature manner. I have raised similar points in other RfAs. The actual belief is of no significance to me; the way it is presented is. However, I would not have opposed on that basis alone; the determinative issue is the lack of content contributions. Do you need more clarification?  Sandstein  12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein: I don't run a website. It was a free "tripod" site that only listed my personal religio/philoso experiences and an extensive list of books. I haven't used it since 2006. The fact that you mentioned it, is why others, and myself have questioned you. Synergy 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the way I phrased my opposition has led people to mistakenly believe that I oppose you on account of your beliefs. On second thought, the issue is really not at all important. I apologise for any hard feelings that may have arisen and have struck that part of my opposition.  Sandstein  13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None taken. We've had civil conversations in the past, so I wasn't going to assume the worst. And thank you. Synergy 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose per iridescent - if Synergy agreed not to close XfD discussions, then I would reconsider. PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can provide diffs, to a pattern of problematic closures since the June MfD cited above in which I have noted was a mistake, then I will agree to not close XfDs. Synergy 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked through your recent closings, and they seem ok. I've downgraded to a weak oppose based on the MfD incident. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As recent experience should tell, such agreements made in RFAs are totally unenforceable. It would also suggest they'd never be "competent" to close ths discussions. Surely it'd be better to examine the contributions and see if you are comfortable that lessons have been learnt and use of discretion in which discussions to close and why will be suitably exercised in future. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello anon, I trust Synergy, but the MfD incident is a little too recent. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Mainly per Giggy, but I believe most article writing experience is needed. iMatthew (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Q4. I would find Xenocidic's hypothetical a little hard myself; I would not have gotten to a week's block that soon. But it's a gullibility test: a calm response, immediately following a profanity which immediately follows the block, is very likely to be an act. That Synergy does not consider the possibility, especially when reversing someone else's block (as he stipulates) is dismaying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That user in the real example that was based off of did indeed reform. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, just to clarify, you are supposed to put yourself into the shoes of the blocking admin, so Synergy is fine in saying that he would unblock (overturning his own act). And N.W. is also correct in his statement that the "real user" behind this hypothetical situation did go on to be a constructive contributor. We'll never know if the same would have happened if I had not taken a chance in offering the {{2nd chance}} template and unblocking after a positive/promising response. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support How could I not, when you haven't made any mistakes since June, and have such an unbelievable amount of edits to RFPP in your last 500 and an even more incredible amount of edits to AIV and UAA in your last 500, all of which being areas you want to work in the most. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Per lack of recent activity in 3 out of four admin areas he wants to work in, irresponsible XfD closes, and lack of improvement on RfA issues. Sorry for the sarcasm. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seemed rather unnecessary, Erik. Isn't there a more civil way you could have worded your statement? GlassCobra 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd probably say three RFPP requests in 500 edits is well above the average, I don't know many editors that run across that many pages that need protecting. ~ mazca t | c 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, its the same article thrice. To GlassCobra, isn't there a more humble way he could have said that he though he has done well as a Wikipedian since June? Making brazen claims such as that is not appropriate for an admin candidate. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree with the above. The wording of your oppose is dripping sarcasm. It was wholly unnecessary and I suggest you retract it by striking it with an apology. Find another way to express your opposition. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Hate to say it, but "doesn't show a great understanding of the rules (examples above)", plus "can't point to significant examples of content creation" just means "not ready", as far as I can see. WilyD 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For content creations, I have a list I pointed to in the first paragraph of my opening statement. ReagrdsSynergy 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nope, sorry per xfd closes and incivility brought up above. There is a difference between incivility that can be overlooked, said in times of stress and a blatant attack. ViridaeTalk 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak oppose - Sorry, don't trust your judgment.  Asenine  23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - I've generally got an OK impression of you here, but this edit (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Ryan_Postlethwaite&diff=1997680306&oldid=1997639711) on my ED page really gets to me and makes me question your judgement. There's two explanations; you were either trolling ED, which isn't a good idea because it could lead to attacks or outing of other contributors, or you were suggesting that ED should dig up some more dirt on me. Either way, I'm not sure that I trust your judgement with the tools. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was to propose the article for deletion ( the {{shit}} is basically the equivalent of prod). How would this lead to "outing" someone Ryan? I think that if they wanted to dig up more diffs on you, they would. Synergy 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. oppose It seems you are trying not to be as hasty and condescending as you have been in the past, but I don't see enough improvement to merit support, and I just can't support a candidate that holds WP:IAR in such low regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'oppose - per Oppose #3 by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 07:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism using multiple sockpuppets. WJBscribe (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. oppose just too much controvercy, too much emotion, and not enough concensus to support; Administrators should be there to pour oil on troubled waters not rock the boatMjchesnel (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Altough every registered users are welcome to participate RFAs , I am happy to see how easily people learn to participate in RFAs with a few days of joining :) ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. oppose - too many XfD related concerns --T-rex 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Overall good edits but not satisfied with answers to questions, most importantly question 6. Also per Beeblebrox --Banime (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I see a few things I don't like, namely XfD concerns. Ral315 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No; largely per this. We don't need more admins who can't admit they're wrong. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per civility concerns articulated above. Also this closure while undoutably correct as to outcome seems uneccesarily bitey and unhelpful to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See here, please. Synergy 02:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed you had contacted the user but hadn't actually looked into it. My concern, though mitigated, still stands in as much as I still think the closing message was less than ideal. While it wouldn't be enough by itself to justify an oppose it is, imo, a useful datapoint for consideration. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Sorry must oppose, mainly per FPaS and Nousernamesleft. -Dureo (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak oppose The followup to Q7 is more disconcerting than the answer. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - As a user who has on numerous occasions been proved wrong and such. I can see too many similarities between myself and this user. I would certainly not be given adminship and, I cannot see enough differences to warrant this user being given adminship.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Too many mistakes, including XFD closure and poorly chosen words when discussing with other editors. (I'm assuming good faith here.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, I still believe that user is a net asset to the project, but there are too many "little things" being brought up in this oppose section that make me feel that the candidate would not be a good admin at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 12 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]
    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) (Changed to Oppose, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 12 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) (Note: Balloonman has switched to Support)[reply]
    LOL... accusations of inclusionist, not illusionist... if you were an illusionist, I'd have to support with no questions!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should add that to your standards that illusionist = instant support ;) - Icewedge (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, being an illusionist might be just as bad as an inclusionist... but the other side of the coin. I mean, illusionists make things disappear, thus, it only leads to the conclusion that illusionists is code for "deletionist"!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Switched to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 7 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]
    Echoing others here. Generally yes, but not now. user:Everyme 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, at least for now. Can't quite make up my mind either way here. Would rather like to see an answer to Q7 of Protonk, especially in view of XfD issues raised at previous RfA and since the candidate states in the answer to Q1 that he intends to be active as an admin in the AfD area. Nsk92 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I find compelling arguments from editors I respect on both sides and will have to ponder longer. I may switch and am leaning toward support.  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I can't come to a decision, despite examining scores of Synergy's edits and the agruments made by both pro and con camps. Some of the accusations leveled at Synergy hold little merit; however, I'm too concerned with Synergy's tone in some interactions to be able to cast a supporting vote. Majoreditor (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I came here to support, giving the amazement I felt in the past, when I often wondered whenever I encountered him, why this editor was no admin already. He was always acting like one and usually that is a strong argument for an RfA (based on that if users believe you to be an admin, then you should be one). But the concerns raised by the opposing side worry me a bit and I cannot support yet without having a bad feeling. I will await further development and maybe switch my vote then. SoWhy 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I'll have to think this one over.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral for now. Several concerns have been raised, but not so serious as to cause me to oppose. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral at the moment. I don't think that the user displays much maturity, but it's been a while since I've seen this user in action so have put the RfA on my watchlist and may come back later. JASpencer (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Per the puzzling answer to Q7 and no followup explanation. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Moved to weak oppose. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of the follow up. I've answered the question. Synergy 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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_adminship/Synergy&oldid=1091462086"