Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synergy

[change source]
Synergy (talk · contribs)

Ended: 31 October 2008

Result:Passed (16-2) -- Creol(talk) 05:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Simple for approx. 3 months now and I'd like to see what the community thinks about me becoming an admin here. I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of how simple works, its policies and guidelines, and I believe I meet the requirements. I'm sure Simple will benefit by having me on the admin team. Why do I need the tools? Often times, I find a lot of articles and a few of the other admins aren't watching (I have a number of tagged articles that were deleted). Or, there are times where I know I would block someone who is constantly vandalizing, and Majorly does it before I can file a report. Thank you. Synergy 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate's acceptance:I accept. Synergy 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)I'd forget my head if it wasn't in the process of simplifying something[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support Hell yeah. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Matilda (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deffo! Majorly talk 00:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Erm... per above! Remember to accept the nomination Chenzw  Talk  00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Solid contributor. Will make excellent use of the extra buttons. Mww113 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support – Civil, helpful, shows good judgement around discussion pages, and a good article writer/simplifier. Good experience with WP:QD tagging and some WP:VIP reporting also. Has most of the qualities I expect in admin-candidates. Will do just fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - per this Kennedy (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Per all above. WashingManwithwings (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Striking comment by indefinitely blocked user. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Per all above and because i want to so :P ;) BG7even 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Yes. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good user Malinaccier (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, great user, have no reason to oppose. I trust you not misuse tools. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- see you in a week's time as Synergy (sysop)... Microchip • talk 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - per all above. This support is not really needed but still. FSM Noodly? 08:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support because there's no reason not to. Juliancolton (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He's the most accurate editor in the world! Tharnton345 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support An excellent editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Mainspace contributions are a major concern for me - basically all the new pages from Synergy are GFDL copyright infringements. When creating an article significantly copied from the English Wikipedia, you need a direct link to the article so the attribution is kept. This can be in an edit summary, or placed on the article talk page. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Here, Synergy creates an article with "create from en" as the edit summary. This doesn't satisfy the GFDL - you need to specifically link to it. "Create article using content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalahari_Desert" would satisfy the GFDL. Aside from this RfA, all those new pages really need clearing up completely. Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, almost every article writer is a copyviolator. Also, although you are a sysop on ENWP, you only have two article edits, and this is your first edit for almost a year. MC8 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, does me not contributing much here make this somewhat inappropriate? There's an extremely legitimate concern here and it needs solving because it's not fair on the contributors who have released their edits under the GFDL and are not properly attributed here. Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between "created from en" and "created from en:Scotland"? I can understand your reasoning if the names of the articles were different, but, other than that, is it not common sense? MC8 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not common sense to the readers. What does "created from en" mean to them? We have to make the attribution accessible, and the only way to do that is by a direct link to the en.wiki article. copying an article, and not linking it is a direct infringement of the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense to readers who look in the article history? 99% of readers won't know what the history is, let alone how to get to it. Majorly talk 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (conflict) Thats rediculous! Which inexperienced users will look at the history summaries? In any case, there is a iw link at the side. Kennedy (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the GFDL, the copyright license that this project and the English Wikipedia release their content under! If you don't like it, go and change the license or go edit a project that uses a public domain license! Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I raised the GFDL issue with Synergy before; his response was to evasively wikilawyer his way around the copyright policy (which, as written here, did not take the proper wording of the GFDL into account; I was forced to change it so it was inline with the en policy that actually makes sense). Some onwiki discussion here, but I made the mistake of having most of the discussion on IRC (sorry). The fact that Synergy's latest article, Trey Parker, is a copy paste of the EnWP version (compare... the only difference is the stuff at the bottom as he's only copy pasted the lead) does not instil confidence. I am sorry, I can not support a candidate whose understanding of copyright, even after reminders and pointers to where he can get more information, is poor. Giggy (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of our conversation, I was no aware of it, since I had never done anything like it before joining simple (creating pages from other wiki's), and of course, that was off wiki conversation. When you pointed it out in August (the link you give), I began complying with the version you wrote at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Trey Parker was created as an example (along with Matt Stone) to show RyanPoss how I would better conform to GFDL. Nothing at Wikipedia:Copyrights tells me that I have to create talk pages, and everything I have done is inline with what you've written. Synergy 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to clarify, before August I was creating articles by this version. The version I link, before giggy's edits, tell me that just adding the iw's were good enough. Synergy 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest you should make talk pages; I suggested don't you make entire articles as copy pastes from EnWP, as this is not the English language Wikipedia. Giggy (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, missing word added (in italics), sorry all. Giggy (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why didn't you explain this on Wikipedia:Copyrights? As far as I can see, I'm following what is written there, perfectly. Synergy 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between English and Simple English shouldn't need to be explained, surely... Giggy (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

I apologize if there were times where it wasn't at all clear where the article was coming from. I figured by placing the iw link to en on the page at the same time as creating the article, and saying so in the edit summary was enough. Maybe I'm wrong. I just didn't think that creating at least 6 to 7 hundred talk pages here on simple (the rough equivalent to how many articles I've created here; although it could be more) , only saying what the edit summary says, was not very productive, possibly unneeded and a waste. If you suggest a better edit summary to use, I will of course use it. Synergy 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to link directly to the article, when I say link, I mean put the url or put something that can be clicked or linked to. For all the pages you've created that are copies from en.wiki, you need to go and put something on the talk page explaining where you got the content from, or you're breaking the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, I did that already. Anyone who is curious about where it came from will notice that en (stub from en or en.wiki as some of my other edit summaries were) stands for English and there is a link to the en article on the side of the page, and at the bottom of the article under the categories. If for some reason, I chose to create an article with content from the de wiki, I'd say the same in the edit summary. Synergy 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that, if you think it will be better, from now on I can provide a link to the article in the edit summary. The last thing I want to do is give the appearance that I willingly want to break GFDL, because thats definitely not my intent. Synergy 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Example. Synergy 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what to do on this one.....I just put this here so it's noted that I didn't ignore it.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  06:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Synergy&oldid=8888681"