Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy 2

Add links
From 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

[edit]

Final (85/30/3); Ended on 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC), per Candidate Withdrawal

Nomination

[edit]
Synergy (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present Synergy as a candidate for adminship. He's been here since 2006 (although with a year break in 2007) and has amassed over 17,000 edits over a wide range of namespaces. One area in which I've seen some really good work is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations - he's extremely thorough and I guess he must have some clue if he can work out how the process work! :-) He could really use the admin tools to further his work there and so he can block socks. He does a lot of work in deletion discussions where he always gives a thoughtful insight - I believe he will be a great addition to the regular closing admins. His comments there show a good understanding of the deletion process and criteria. If you take a look at his deletion contributions (admin only sorry!), you'll see numerous pages that he's correctly tagged for speedy deletion - I'm sure he'd do some good work clearing out CAT:CSD. About 40% of his work is in the article namespace - you can see a selection of his work here. I hope that you can support this request for adminship. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: - I encountered Synergy when he was doing some work over at SPI, and was searching for someone to do the administrative work needed to close out a couple of cases. This is clearly an individual who would be a net benefit to the project if he had the tools to do the job he does in all but name in this area - I was frankly stunned to discover that he was not already an administrator. On review of his contributions, you will find someone who contributes constructively to discussions, understands our policies and community norms, and can interpret these effectively. The community really needs someone like Synergy to get the tools to continue his necessary work in a much more effective and efficient manner, and I hope you can support this RfA. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination. Much of what I need to say is eloquently explained above by Ryan and Fritz. I have known Synergy for a while, mainly from SPI, where he and I are fellow clerks. This is where I believe Synergy would most benefit with the tools. However, he has constructively contributed to many areas across Wikipedia, developing sound knowledge and experience across. His contributions show clue, thoughtfulness, insight and dedication, and I firmly believe Synergy with +sysop would be a net positive to the project. Regardless of any past history, I believe he is ready for the tools. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ryan. I was very pleased that we were able to put our past behind us. And thank you Fritz and Peter for co noming. I accept. Synergy 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a conversation with someone I trust. Someone who shoots me straight. He told me I am not ready, and cannot bring himself to oppose me. This is the only oppose I am taking to heart here. I withdraw. Synergy 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Let me take this time to advertise something. We need more admins who are willing to block suspected socks for spi (as of this very minute we have 27 cases in need of admin attention). Please. This is an area I currently work in, and I will continue to work in (but instead of bothering admins to block for me, I'll be the one doing it). Based on my experience with ACC, I feel comfortable handling UAA and also unblock requests. But generally, the only area I do not feel comfortable in is IfD. I know next to nothing about this, and do not plan on learning either but if I decide to, I know a few people I trust to get me started (such as commons admins, and en.wiki admins).
follow-up Q what is the difference between blocking socks and blocking suspected socks? DGG (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Blocking socks is a generality. It comprises confirmed socks left unblocked (example circumstances: CU has blocked underlying ip only, CU forgot to block accounts, or normally has independant admins block), likely socks left unblocked (technically related yet CU wishes the blocking admin review for behavioral evidence, or a match was found yet its not strong enough to confirm), and suspected socks who may be in need of a block. Blocking suspected socks are the most difficult, and the ones we need more experienced admins for (I can get anyone to block the confirmed). They are blocks made by the judgment of the admin according to the evidence. This is based on a wide variety of evidence such as behavior (editing patterns, edit summaries, overlapping edits, etc), logged in corrections (editing while logged out, then the account logs in and corrects the time stamp), and the utilization of past CU and SSP cases.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud of many of the articles I've created (some of which are currently awaiting queue on the main page as DYKs; a list is linked on my userpage and in Ryans nom statement), and also the assistance I've provided (I recently helped Jake Wartenburg get his first DYK). To me, this is what wikipedia is about. The collaboration. Working together with various editors with one aim/goal: to create, and improve our content. These are my best contributions.
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: Since my last RfA...Conflicts, yes. Civil conversation usually follows. None of which included edit warring. By conflict, I assume we are also including the "just your run of the mill disagreements". I've had plenty of these, but nothing recently that has caused me stress.
Additional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
4. Would you Speedy Delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it?
A: Yes, I would (having a tag on an article does not make it exempt from speedy in most cases). If you want specifics, you'll have to give me an example. I'd be more than happy to answer it.
4b. Follow Up: Are there any exceptions where you wouldn't delete? What factors, such as time since creation or article topic, would affect your decision to delete?
A: Likely AfD candidates, where the subject is borderline on notability (i.e. I couldn't find sources to add from google books, very few ghits for sourcing). Generally you can tell by looking at the article, if its pure vandalism (hence speedied with a hangon or under construction template) or if it has "some" notability. Obviously you have to be careful in this area, because its less obvious to people who are unfamiliar with the subject of the article (the often assumption that well, i've never heard of it, so i deleted it is bad form). Even asking a few (no, not just one, but a few) editors if they have heard of the subject can prevent a good article from being deleted too fast (speedies that are too fast will loose us editors). So time since creation needs to be taken into account. Just because an editor (who may be new) isn't finished, is likely in need of help, creates half an article, we should take care and caution when deciding its fate. I hope that explains my initial answer a bit.
Additional questions from User:Hobit
5. How would you close this AfD as it stood at this time. What would be the logic behind that close?
A. Part of assessing an article for deletion, is the availability of viewing the article in question, and determining the notability of its subject against the arguments. With this in mind, I cannot say one way or the other what my action is but I do endorse DGG's close from a google search and googlebooks search. My initial approach to BLP AfDs is whether or not I can locate primary (in his own words), secondary (affirmation of said info) and third party (indepedant of such) sources to add before considering it for deletion. Sorry I couldn't answer your question.


Questions from GlassCobra

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. For voluntary -sysop: Real life situations, long wikibreak, unforseeable stress, and lapse of judgment. If I've made egregious errors than I would take some time off and put all focus more directly on articles for awhile. I'd run for reconfirmation at the suggestion and endorsement through an RfC, provided there was no significant opposition to the filing parties views (or the outside view, basically whoever was doing the suggesting that I reconfrim). Ideally I'd want an uninvolved editor to be initiating this.
7. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?
A. First I would locate another admin who I discuss similar things with often, and discuss it. If its even needed at that point, I would have another conversation, this time with the blocking admin. From there we can decide whats most appropriate. In certain cases, the blocking admin will agree to unblock under specific conditions. If the blocked user agrees with them, we can unblock and watch the editor more closely.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I believe its a serious problem that will eventually be solved when the specifics are ironed out. We are currently not doing enough to protect living people (I purposely place emphasis on this because sometimes I think we as a community loose sight of this obvious fact), no matter how many vandal fighters log into huggle each night. We need to be checking for unsourced and potentially controversial (or libelous) edits, and not just key words (such as "person x is a dick", "bite my ass" or "hi mom i edited, you can now revert me") that are easy to revert, and inflate our edit counts (you're doing a great job jdelanoy).
8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I neither supported, nor opposed in the polls for flagged revs. And I did this on purpose, since I felt the discussions had too much drama and confusion surrounding it (where everone disagreed with (x), and voiced their opinions (y) to correct (x), etc. etc.) My stance on this simple. If we get flagged rev's or if we decide to change how we approach this issue, I will be there to help. Until then, I'll continue to help in other ways. Semi protection for all might be too drastic, since we can potentially block ips where blocking is more appropriate and there are many articles that receive fewer vandalism editions per constructive edits. So I believe it should be on a case by case basis. We rely on a large portion of ip edits for content on current events, so telling them to buzz off would be something I could not back.
8c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: I believe this was discussed in 2007, resulting in no change (funny isn't it? no consensus to change the result of how we close no consensus afd's) to how we close AfDs as no consensus. I side with our current system. Why not give change a chance? Its too drastic; will result in an influx of previously closed AfDs (refiling old no consensus closures), influx of DRVs (for every no consensus delete), fewer articles (would drastically reduce BLP's to the point where we can actually manage the problems, but come on!), and fewer editors (why edit an encyclopedia where only the most notable survive?). Also, I may be wrong (for lack of seeing examples to the contrary only), but I don't think we have very many problems with keeping the marginally notable BLP's we have (meaning: currently, AfD weeds out the problem articles). We just need to keep a better eye on the ones we have. This, I believe is the real issue (protect the subjects, not delete them when we've failed to do so).
Follow-up: I don't understand your answer. The start of your reasoning indicates that you're basing it off of hypothetical policy change causing old AFDs to be reopened, but then you speak as if you were to be acting under current policy causing all of them to go to DRV. I can't tell if that's sarcasm there in the middle, but what do you mean by "I don't think we have very many problems keeping the marginally notable BLPs"? Considering the project's inadequate protection of living subjects, why would we be concerned with a problem in keeping BLPs on marginally notable people?
Response: Sorry if it came off as sarcasm. But I believe we would have a large number of contested AfDs if they were deleted based on no consensus. As to your second question, yes, that is badly worded, I admit. Right next to that statement I give its meaning. I believe AfD does a good job of sorting out the marginally notable BLPs, and I say this because I do not have an example to the contrary. There is a difference between accessing an article for deletion, and protecting it once its kept. This may have played a part in the confusion, and is what I meant by the comment.
8d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A: No more than any other participant in an AfD. If the subject argues in favor of deletion, say, because he just doesn't want it on wikipedia, he (I'll use he in the generic sense, non gender specific) would have to justify his lack of notability. If hes arguing from a content issue, I'm likely to give it no weight at all since we don't delete articles at AfD based on content issues that can be resolved. Overall, it would be based on the arguments presented, and the consensus following.
Follow-up: You didn't really answer my question. You've created hypotheticals where I've provided specifics. I suppose if I ignore everything after the first sentence, then you did answer it, in which case you're ignoring policy.
Response: Right so I am confused. Deletion is left to the discretion of the admin, after calculating or determining a rough consensus. Any false claims should be removed, regardless of the standing of the AfD. During the AfD, if a participating editor had not done so, I would have. Yet this is still not under the preview of AfD. So the article should not be deleted because it has some bad content (only the content should be removed/deleted) unless the entire article is filled to the brim with false claims. If there is a consensus that he or she is still notable aside from said false claims, the article should remain. I hope this clears up the confusion.
Comment: Even after pointing out to you that the answer is in the deletion policy, you still failed to answer based on policy.
Response: I will post the policy first, then the guideline so we can discuss this further, as its a subject that interests me greatly:

If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

Once you click on the rough consensus link, you'll see:

With regards to living people, a closing admin must take into account our policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admins discretion.

So what are we disagreeing about? Synergy 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I know where the confusion is now. Let me clarify this. If the subjects argument for deletion is solely based only on a few false claims, I would not assign much weight at all. However, if they provided adequate reasoning for the rest of the article, aside from the so called false claims, then I would put more weight on their concerns. Sorry that came out wrong. Synergy 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
continuing follow up Q It would seem on analysis that the key phrase is the interpretation of "relatively unknown". How do you interpret this? DGG (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Subjects of BLPs that are not easily found through online sources. The majority of sources would likely be from book sources (or if you prefer the term "dead tree" sources). These are people who are not in the public, so news sources would be out too. I hope this is satisfactory? Synergy 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The WP:RS policy is that print and online sources are equal. Online is easier for people to find, but that doesn't make print inferior or superior. "Relatively easy to find" is irrelevant, because the question is whether the sources are there and what they say. DGG (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "no"? You asked me how I interpreted "relatively unknown". I did not say that book references or online sources are not equal, or either should be given less weight. You didn't ask me how to interpret sources. Synergy 11:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then what were you saying? You defined "relatively unknown" as someone who is "not easily found through online sources", rather "likely [...] from book sources". That gives less weight to book sources. Seems like obfuscation at this point. لennavecia 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was defining the term as being an npf, "only". I'd have to see an example of a source used to determine if the content was appropriate. I was only answering the question. I use both online sources, and books sources when starting up a fresh article. Synergy 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: You seem to have figured out the problem I had with your last answer: You hadn't answered the question, which was about weight. So, you followed up and answered based on policy. That's what I was looking for. For me, you answered it wrong. That's not to say that you didn't answer it right for someone else's views. Then, when considering this with the part of your original answer to c, where you stated "fewer articles (would drastically reduce BLP's to the point where we can actually manage the problems, but come on!)" as a reason not to "give change a chance"... you said that was not sarcasm, as I had interpreted it to begin with. So, your stance leans inclusionist for BLPs. Considering the damage that can be done (and already has been done) and the lack of meaningful change in the way the project handles its BLPs, I don't believe we need anymore inclusionist admins on the BLP front, particularly those who fail to understand simple situations or understand our most core policies. And I must say, for someone who openly criticized my questions, you proved to be a good case in point of why they're good. لennavecia 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, Jennavecia does not want to support because he;s too inclusionist with BLPs, I;'m hesitating, because I think he's interpreted the criteria too restrictively. Between us, we can reject everyone who doesn't manage an answer so ambiguous that everyone can interpret it as they please. DGG (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, it's just that you and I are closer to opposite sides of the spectrum and Synergy is somewhere between us. لennavecia 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that I am trying to agree with both of you, but I do disagree with you both. You cannot be 100% of anything. Sometimes I come off as a deletionist, and other times I come off as an inclusionist. Sticking to one side will turn up many wrong decisions. I prefer to interpret and follow the spirit of our policies and guidelines. If it can be shown that an article passes than we keep it, if it does not, we delete it. It doesn't get much simpler than this. Synergy 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Skomorokh
9. After three unsuccessful requests for administratorship and writing WP:NONSERVIAM, why do you want to become an administrator?
A: Because I believe I can help in this area, and feel I am qualified. I've also noticed a horrible trend this year. Admins are dropping off like flies, for reasons I cannot surmise. So we need more admins, regardless if I pass or fail. Also note that the essay you linked was only created by me to facilitate the reason why plenty of excellent editors refuse to request adminship. I've asked two people in particular (Finetooth and Awadewitt) to run, and my answers was that they feel it would take away from article work (I also asked MER-C but he had a similar answer, though not strictly the same as the others). A perfectly reasonable answer in my eyes. To not seek adminship, doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation, yet it can be construed as such.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 10. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: To prevent disruption of any kind, after sufficient warnings. Malicious socking is exempt from warnings though. It should be attempted before protection of an article.
  • A: Edit warring between registered or established members/accounts for full, and multiple edits from multiple ips for semi. The history of an article can lend insight into decisions here.
  • A: After determining it meets the criteria. Caution should be used here, unless blatantly obvious. More on this in answer to question 4b.
  • A: To bypass a consensus in lieu extending disruption of a process (such as XfDs nominated to prove a point, or are found to be disruptive).
  • Followup: While WP:SNOW is indeed one way to WP:IAR by bypassing process (which is the sum of your answer above), and there are obviously other ways to IAR, as well, how would you determine "the time is right" to IAR? What are the factor(s) you would look for? And after assessing those factors, what action(s) would you take? - jc37 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: I'm not sure how to answer that. I don't go looking for situations in which to apply the IAR policy, nor do I plan to. If I get the bit, through this request, I don't think there will come a time where I would need to right out ignore any other policies. So at this time I cannot come up with a suitable situation in which I would apply it. But the factors I would look for, would be where commons sense tells me one thing, and a policy contradicts it. After assessing I would probably confer with other editors and admins. From there we may be able to amend a current policy through consensus seeking, and we don't need to use this often misused policy (IAR). As a non admin, I've had to invoke it many times to close AfD's early (back when it wasn't as objectionable as it is now, where we followed the spirit of the process, and not a fixed time spam for every single XfD) where closing it early was not frowned upon, and was acceptable as well as appropriate. I hope this satifies you. Synergy 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus is determined through conversation or arguments in any discussion. For a talk page I assume you mean article talk because userpage talk will need a much larger participation from the community (even AN or ANI would be a better talk for a larger set of eyes). On article talk pages, we are looking for a rough consensus just like in an XfD. Where an articles talk will decide the fate of content, and XfD decides the fate of the entire article. So on article talks, we are determining its content, and through XfDs we determine its notability, and so on. For a DRV, we are looking to determine if the closure was the right call whether its keep or delete.
  • Followup: How would you determine consensus as closer, rather than as a member of the discussion?
  • A: By the weight of the arguments as presented through evidence, reasoning, and interpretation of the subjects by our guidelines, as well as correlating policies.
  • 12. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First I'd make sure I wasn't involved, or one of the editors who edits the article regularly. If so, I would suggest User:JohnQ requests this through WP:RFPP or another admin who is independant of this article. But lets assume that I am not a regular editor there. Second I'd make sure that this was factually accurate, by reviewing the page history. If it was, then I'd ask them to stop on the articles talk page, and leave messages on both of their user talk pages so they were aware of my request. If conversation did not transpire between the parties who appear to be edit warring, and edit warring persists, I would temporarily full-protect the article. I would then help achieve consensus by making suggestions aimed toward settling the dispute, and getting back to editing the article constructively. Once this is achieved, if the articles protection did not expire, I would unprotect it.
Optional question from BQZip01
13. Can you explain the difference between copyrighted images and trademarked images? Are they allowed on Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances. Where can one find a general disclaimer for trademarked images hosted on Wikipedia? Please take your time to research and answer these questions as you deem necessary. I don't expect a quick response as the issue can be quite confusing.
A: No I can't, I'm sorry. I truly have no idea about these differences. I have no interest in images other than FPC. I noted this in my answer to the first question. If you missed it, no worries.
Questions from User:Seddon
14 Did you ever vandalize wikipedia before coming a full time editor?
'A: Yes. In 2006 a friend of mine introduced me to Wikipedia (in real life). He had a page in userspace of an article he was working on. My first edits were to try and help, but he called them vandalism and reverted it. I can't recall the exact nature of the edits, though it was just a noobish mistake. After that I registered an account and learned all I could about it.
15 Write a sentence with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?
A: I am flexible and easy going, and willing to work with anyone, at any pace, anytime.
16 What is your favorite piece of classical music and why?
A: Fur elise. It puts me in a chill mood, really quick.
17 An edit war breaks out, how do you deal with it? Please explore typical outcomes possible
A: Indifferent. This happens all the time. Mostly over silly issues like MoS guidelines, or the validity of sources. Collaboration is key, and what needs to be remembered. We are here for one goal, and one aim. To create, update, expand good article, with good content. Every article is subject to change.
18 Do you trust content dispute resolution on Wikipedia?
A: Yes. I greatly appreciate editors who set aside time, making an effort to settle content disputes, so they can continue to work together in a positive manner. It takes patience and skill to help in this fashion, and is very commendable. I gave this a shot in 2006 with the mediation cabal. I think I did an ok job, and I've been thinking about rejoining for some time.
Question from User:Emufarmers
19 A follow-up of sorts to 8a: could you clarify and expand on what you mean by "We need to be checking for unsourced and potentially controversial (or libelous) edits"? Also, in regard to your statement about the need to move beyond keyword analysis, are you familiar with AbuseFilter?
A: Both of your questions are very similar, so I'll be answering them at the same time. Fritzpoll is working on a method by which we would be able to go through BLPs line by line or "sentence by sentence" and check for these unsources claims that could damage the subjects of BLP articles. Currently, we have dozens of editors who log on each night to huggle and other scripts to revert your basic vandalism. Now, reverting vandals is a fast passed process, and is nessasary. But no matter how good they are, they will always miss things. Whole paragraphs that defame, harm, and ruin reputations are left behind. Sometimes with dubious sources, and sometimes with no sources at all. We need editors to find these and remove them. A separate counter vandalism team dedicated to removing these edits. Abusefilter can only do so much. We need experienced editors reading entire articles, not just clever keywords.


General comments

[edit]
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

[edit]
~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate a bit: Synergy's good record as an admin at Simple, plus recent featured and DYK work, convinces me that he's ready for the mop. DurovaCharge! 01:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Who cares if he was problematic in the past? Excellent user, deserves the bit. Ceranllama chat post 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per me. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wish I could have co-nomed (4X edit conflict) Strong Support - I've been waiting for this for a long time, absolutely!  iMatthew :  Chat  22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support For all the support, advice and patience you had when dealing with me on a number of occasions about wikimatters both on and off wiki. I have no doubt you will make an excellent admin seeing as how you are already well versed in policy and use of tools. May the force be with you. Lucifer (Talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. May the forks be with you, young sous chef. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support —Animum (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Level-headed user. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support- Absolutely. I've seen Synergy around and generally been impressed. Reyk YO! 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. F$*& yes. —Cyclonenim | Chat  22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Majorly talk 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. (ec) Knowledgeable and civil user. Excellent contribs. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Always level-headed and thoughtful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - He has written poetry in the past, ergo, he's a cool guy. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support - Absolutely. Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and friendly -- everything I look for in a candidate. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Yes. — Aitias // discussion 23:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Been around a while, knows the rope, willing to help with the backlog. Cool3 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Well qualified. -download | sign! 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. That's all I have to say! Ginbot86 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, does good work here; trustworthy, knowledgeable, intelligent, likable. He would have made a great admin by his last RFA back in September but that was derailed by (what seemed to me to be) a whole bunch of personal opposes. Icewedge (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Synergy does good work at SPI. While there is some hesitation given past issues, I believe those issues are firmly in the past and that he will make a good admin going forward. MBisanz talk 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 00:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, Works well with others, competent and hard working, would be benefit to the community to have this user as an admin at SPI. Preceding unsigned comment 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per work in WP:SPI. Let's assume good faith and forget the past event. Synergy also does great work on the Simple English Wikipedia. Overall, a good admin. MathCool10 Sign here! 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Support I am happy with the response to my questions, and I can see nothing else in his contributions that worries me. Good Luck! ∗ \ / (⁂) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Changing to weak, something about un-withdrawing (drawing?) bothers me.[reply]
  34. Strong Support Wizardman 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Avruch T 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support User seems to have improved since last RFA. I have no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 02:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support — R2 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has plenty of common sense and seems thoughtful enough. He's been pretty level headed in some controversial areas. RxS (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Not enough administrators currently. Plus, this user is certainly qualified for the position, per answers to the questions and contribs. tempodivalse [☎] 02:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No worries.--Giants27 T/C 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I had known prior to seeing Synergy at the top of the RfA list that he wasn't already an admin, but I had always asked myself why he wasn't. Whenever I see his name around, it's always associated with something good. Should have been granted the bit quite a while ago. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I know where Synergy is coming from (as a fellow clerk who doesn't have the tools) and how irritating it can be, not being able to do your job to the best of your ability due to limitations outside of your control. I have had good interactions with Synergy and I think he would be an excellent admin. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Doh I've known synergy for a long time back when he was under SynergeticMaggot. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to grant this guy the bit. His work on various gnomish tasks is extremely good. I have worked with him on multiple tasks, the latest is of course WP:SPI who we do need more administrators assisting with. Currently the case count is up to 28, and that is after some 10 cases being closed in the last 24 hours. —— nixeagleemail me 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I have found Synergy to be a very helpful, knowledgeable, and reasonable user. The opposing arguments did not sway my opinion. Wronkiew (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Synergy is doing great work clerking in SPI and has a definite need for the tools there. Valley2city‽ 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No concerns here. FlyingToaster 04:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per the above, and, interestingly, some of the below. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support clean blocklog, civil talkpage, and per most of what's been said on this page. ϢereSpielChequers 05:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. per my co-nom Fritzpoll (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support sterling work at WP:SPI, and it is clear that he has taken on board the issues that scuppered previous RfA's, and eradicated the problems. No problem whatsoever here. Mayalld (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Trustworthy and helpful. GT5162 (我的对话页) 09:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Good candidate, though having some controversial thoughts. But deserves to be an admin. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, no evidence that user would abuse the tools. If having some slightly controversial opinions is now grounds for opposition, than we're in worse trouble than I thought. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  55. Support. I !voted neutral the last time per a large number of negative issues being brought up. Since then, I think Synergy has learned his lessons and those reasons do not apply to his current personality anymore. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Hmmm. Not overly impressed with Q7 (surely the best way is to talk to the blocking admin first, not after another conversation?) and there are some reasonably disturbing diff's from the opposition below as well - in particular those comments aimed to Giano and Malleus. I was really thinking about not commenting on this, but on balance I think you'll be more help than harm with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of admins I know, rely on a "sanity checks". The assumption of the question was that I disagreed, yet not knowing specifically what I am disagreeing to. So if I am wrong in disagreeing (allowing for the very possible margin of error) I doubt I would need to waste the time of the blocking admin, when someone who I am used to speaking with (about blocks) can explain. Make sense? Synergy 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point of view. I guess my thoughts are that if anyone (admin / non admin) disagreed with a block I'd made, then I would prefer they come to me directly and we can discuss it, as opposed to seeking a third opinion immediately. Not a big deal, probably just a personal matter of the perception of the best course of action. Pedro :  Chat  14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I see no problems here :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per Jenuk. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Personal problems aside, there are enough people that I trust that trust Synergy and work with him often so there is almost no possibility that he will do anything but use the tools in the best interest of the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support He does needz WANDERBL support from a lot of users. I trust him a lot :) Mixwell (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support with reservations. I agree with Jennavecia and the points that GlassCobra brings up, but I still think that Synergy will be a net positive to the project (thanks, Pedro). hmwithτ 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Very Good Editor and also an administrator on Simple English Wikipedia. Valerian456 Hush, Rush 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I honestly can't oppose. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, I've seen many good things from Synergy and the opposers have not raised anything I find excessively troubling. Some good question answers demonstrate he knows what he's doing, and long-time past experience suggests he's trustworthy. While some XfD problems may exist, I'm confident Synergy will be an even greater asset to the encyclopedia with admin tools. ~ mazca t|c 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - I've seen and appreciated Synergy's tireless contributions and good judgment as a clerk at WP:SPI; he handled the RfA questions with the same good sense I've seen elsewhere; and I have every reason to believe he would do well as an administrator. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support The answer on 1A could have been better, I don't think we want to block "suspected" anybody, but rather confirmed. 4A could have been better as well, if some-thing's being worked on, let's see where it's going before getting too quick on the delete button. Looking over the reasons to oppose, I just don't see anything major enough to convince me to oppose. I think Synergy is a clueful editor, dedicated to the improvement of the wiki. It's not a deliberate attempt to parrot Pedro, but I do see this as a net positive. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I've known Synergy for a long while, I trust the user. Keegantalk 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support  Checked contribs and attitude. Candidate is here to build the encyclopedia. Continuing personal growth. --StaniStani  00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I couldn't see him abusing the tools, and he would make a good admin - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Weak support. I echo the concerns raised in many of the opposes, but I have seen your positive contributions on simple and know you can do well as an administrator on en too. Malinaccier (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Concerns, while valid, are not enough to convince me that he would be anything other than than a net positive.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support-Good work with exposing sock puppets, good count of article edits, no special article work I see but you see to jump from page to page helping out articles in need which definently deserves a thumbs up and a respectable amount of user page edits.Kingrock 02:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. What a conundrum! After checking every one of Jennavecia's diffs supporting her oppose below, I had to go back and look through your contribs... then set this aside to think about it for awhile. Hard to discount the opposes from editors I respect - Jenna, Iri and GlassCobra have by far the most appropriate and valid oppose arguments. I, also, am not a fan of the IRC shenanigans. However, I have to stick to my usual criteria - can we trust you with the tools? You don't have to be perfect; you don't have to be a saint. I think we can trust you, you have the experience, you have the knowledge (WE CAN REBUILD HIM...), this equals a support from me. Tan | 39 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, sir. Well said. hmwithτ 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Good work at SPI. Demonstrated need for the tools. KnightLago (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak support opposes range from convincing to "lolirc". The withdrawal of the RfA and subsequent return doesn't really signal steely nerves but I am loath to interpret more than that. Has a demonstrated need for the tools. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Good user. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Based on others' comments also, his views on BLPs are balanced, and he stands up for himself properly. DGG (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Good job so far, and we lack administrators currently (and the very idea we have too many administrators shows a complete lack of understanding of our backlogs) -- lucasbfr talk 08:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Syn is trustworthy, and will make a good admin. rootology (C)(T) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support – I've worked with this user some, and can trust him/her enough that s/he won't abuse the tools. Also has need for them. TheAE talk/sign 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Synergy is an experienced administrator user and I have no problem with him being promoted to bureaucrat administrator. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an RfA :D--Res2216firestar 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I was reading the RfB section; I must have forgotten that RfAs and RfBs were on the same page. *blush* --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose: Not a very good idea at all. Giano (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in my !vote, we shouldn't live in the past. Things happen, we can't prevent them. Ceranllama chat post 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe I'm missing something here, but Giano, why don't you think his adminship is a good idea, and Ceranthor, what happened in the past that I should (or should not) be ignoring? What am I missing from reading the noms, questions, !votes, candidate's talk page, and contribution breakdown? If there's something wrong with the candidate- or something specific that someone thinks is not wrong, but could be perceived as such- why have the nominators, candidates, and commenters not said what it is? (If I'm missing something completely obvious, I apologize.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, read the past RFA's if you wish. Ceranllama chat post 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen your opposes before, Dougs, and never commented upon them. Are you aware that en:wiki actually has nearly the lowest ratio of administrators to registered accounts among all 266 language editions of Wikipedia? Check the list at Meta if you doubt this. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we actually have fewer administrators per user than only six other Wikipedia editions: Farsi, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, Portuguese, and Chinese. —Animum (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which places us in the bottom three percent. DurovaCharge! 14:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I haven't had (to my knowledge) any significant interactions with this user, so I have to go by what I've seen digging through the past few months' contribs briefly and what others provide here. However reading through the old RfAs gave me pause. I'm not sure Synergy has the constitution appropriate for dealing with troublesome/controversial users; for example, his tone in talking to Giano [1][2] just doesn't help anything (it comes off as "talking down" to him, and telling someone to calm down doesn't generally help). Also, there was concern about XfD conduct in the previous RfA, and I haven't found much in the way of recent items that can persuade me he has learned, ex. [3][4] --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Synergy disallowed from closing any MFDs? He's improved over the time between the previous RFA and this one. MathCool10 Sign here! 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if he's disallowed from closing MfDs; my point is that such recent MfD comments are not constructive and not what I would expect from a possible admin. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you describe the contents of WP:BITCH for us non-admins? Avruch T 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Majorly talk 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was a redirect to User:MZMcBride/Don't be a whiny bitch (mfd). ~ Ameliorate! 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Der Wohltempierte Fuchs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And now also per GlassCobra. I'm not impressed by withdrawing followed by unwithdrawing within three hours. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, agree with concerns about temperament as raised by David Fuchs (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    uh... I don't see an edit by David Fuchs to this page. —— nixeagleemail me 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Figured it out, David has a different sig then his username. doh! —— nixeagleemail me 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is the comment above Jbmurray (talk · contribs). This one [5]. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. User does not have the temperament for an administrator. His interactions with Giano has me worried (links are provided by David above). Furthermore, I see no activity in the areas of AfD since his last RfA (aside from a few non-admin closures for articles which have overwhelming consensus). Aside from his contributions on SSP, I see no other areas of improvement relating to administrative duties (he seem to have avoided altogether the areas of concern from his last RfA). —Dark talk 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns seem to be confirmed per Lara's oppose below. His bad faith with Giano and Malleus seems to show his intolerance with both of these editors. I am concerned over his conduct with these users if he does get the admin bit. —Dark talk 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to have only given a cursory glance over Synergy's XfD closes, and will seek to elaborate on that here. Much of the editor's work regarding this area is the maintenance of closed XfDs, which accounts for approximately 20% of his edits on XfD. Since I do not deal in the areas of MfD, I will only go through his AfD closes since the last RfA. Apart from the problematic AfD close listed below by Lara - in his AfDs, I see a concerning trend to close AfD discussions early. [6] (4 days for discussion) [7] (4 days) [8] (3 days) [9] (4 days) [10] (3 days) [11] (3 days) [12] (4 days) [13] (4 days) [14] (4 days) [15] (5 days) [16] (4 days) He seems to have closed the majority (if not all) of his AfDs in this manner; well before the 7 days necessary. I would not note this if it is an isolated incident, but it represents an impatience which I find disturbing for an administrator. —Dark talk 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever it's worth, I agree that closes only 3 or 4 days in are concerning, especially for a non-admin; however, AfD was only extended to 7 days recently. The George Karakunnel close seems to be decent enough. GlassCobra 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that, as a non-admin, he should close the AfDs well after the necessary period, not before the period (~3-4 days) or even (IMHO) during the period's end (~5-6 days). However in light of your comment, I've struck that example out. —Dark talk 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but this was before the issue became more strict. These were actions that were not overturned, and never questioned...until my RfA. My past issues in my other RfAs with AfDs were those where people object to them on my talk page, and overturn them. I have not had a single AFD overturned because an admin disagreed with my actions since my last RfA. Regards. Synergy 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
    You're saying that because noone objected to your actions, they were right? —Dark talk 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you? If an admin closes and AfD, and no one objects, no DRV, then you will assume that their actions are endorsed. I gather that this is assumed by everyone. Those AfDs were from months ago, and they just now are being questioned. Synergy 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone vandalized an article, and it was never fixed: you would assume that the vandalism is endorsed? I think not... It doesn't work that way. —Dark talk 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually maybe a better example. If a user is not adhering to policy, but no established editor notices it enough to tell him; would that make those edits in line with policy? Likewise, would he change these edits in the future if they were not disputed? No it will not, and no he will not. Judging from your comments, you are refusing to admit that these AfD closures were wrong; which speaks volumes about the opposes below regarding your stubbornness and refusal to admit wrongdoing. This is yet another reason why I would not support you as an administrator. —Dark talk 05:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am refusing to admit wrong doing because a) they were good closes, regardless of "time frame", b) they were all from October, before editors began complaining about en masse about early closes, and c) you do not present recent closes. Non of these AfDs were controversial, none of them overturned, even with many editors watching me since my last RfA. Out of approx. two hundred closed XfDs as a non admin, around 5-6 were objected to, and about 2-3 overturned (the rest endorsed per DRV). I think you are picking and choosing which AfDs you want, to suit an argument. 5 wrong closes compared to the amount of work I've done with AfD is good, in my opinion. Many admins are overturned at DRV everyday. Closing an AfD as keep is less harmful than deleting. You've made a mountain out of a mole hill here. Synergy 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not present recent closes because there was none. Your last activity to AfD closes was from early 2009-late 2008; you have not touched any AfD closes since. Regarding your so-called good closes, these closes may be indisputed but they were far from good. I really don't care if noone complained about them, the fact remains that you as a non-admin, closed AfDs prematurely, signifying impatience and ignorance of consensus. What's to say that you won't, as an admin, close controversial articles prematurely and without care; without any consideration to the time period for discussion? From your comments here, nothing. As long as you think it's for the benefit of Wikipedia, you'll do it right, regardless of other's opinions? "Closing an AfD as keep is less harmful than deleting." - How about closures of controversial BLPs? Do you really think so? "5 wrong closes compared to the amount of work I've done with AfD is good" Since you really think I am being nit-pickery, link to your good AfD closures since your last RfA please. —Dark talk 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you obviously do not get my point, I will make it clear. You've participated in 50 AfDs since your last RfA (ignoring the maintenance work). Out of those 50, 48 are closures and two are comments in the AfD. One of those comments placed has no bearing on the AfD whatsoever... So what if the school is communist? Does that detract from the school's notability? If anything, it increases it... Out of the remaining 48, the average time taken to review them is approximately 3 minutes (and I haven't discounted the time it takes to find the AfD either) For those premature (I base this on the 5 day discussion period not 7 days, as it had not changed yet.), I find [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] [29] [30] [31] [32], 16 premature closes which is approximately 33% of your AfD closures. For the rest of your closures, only one had additional comments on it, apart from delete or keep etc. I also find this interesting. What made this default to no consensus? —Dark talk 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Like NixEagle, I've known Synergy since he was SynergeticMaggot. I was his adopter for a few weeks prior to his previous RFA. I recommended against him running at the time, as I did not believe he was ready. He decided to go for it anyway, and although I did participate in the RFA to question a particularly poor comment made in one oppose, I did not vote. As it is, I still don't believe Synergy is ready to be an administrator on en-wiki.

    He managed 41 supports in less than 12 hours, which seems impressive, but many of the names are those I recognize from IRC, where many "joke" of a cabal, including Synergy himself.[33][34]

    Also, a major issue from his previous RFAs regarded his improper early closures of AFDs. Since his last RFA, he has repeated this problem.[35] There he closed an AFD early as "speedy keep. Procedural keep." The article had been nominated for deletion on Oct 27. It was apparently queued on DYK and inappropriately placed on the main page on Oct 31. Synergy stated that removal from the main page should be sought and the AFD resubmitted, which makes no sense. The article link should have been removed from the main page. Also, when a discussion was brought up on AN regarding those making inappropriate early keep closes,[36] I don't think Synergy responded appropriately, especially considering his past issues with similar He called the discussion "absurd" and failed to address the issues, instead basically stating that his early NAC keeps shouldn't be criticized if early close deletes weren't also being discussed.

    In addition to the troubling diffs David Fuchs provided regarding Giano[37][38] (which was not the first time,[39] though I can't for the life of me figure out the context of his last comment: "Right. Oilseed rape. Nice try."), I also feel his exchange with Malleus Fatuorum in Sephiroth storm's RFA was pointless trolling.[40] Lastly, as someone with strict views on BLP, I don't believe the WP:BITCH reference in a BLP MfD was appropriate.[41] لennavecia 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also left confused by Synergy's answers to my questions regarding BLP. Even after pointing out that my fourth question is based from policy, he still fails to answer it based upon that policy. I'm also unable to understand his views on the previous question after following up on it, so that just adds to my concern. لennavecia 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Granted I'm biased, but per Wikipedia:Speedy keep the AFD close was correct. Additionally, the article was listed on DYK for Halloween, if had been left off until it closed it would have missed that. ~ Ameliorate! 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SK point 5 states an AFD can be closed early if The article is currently linked from the Main Page. In such a case, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors or {{editprotected}} on one of the specific template talk pages to have the link removed before nominating the article. (emphasis mine) This clearly applies to articles nominated while on the main page. This article went to the main page days after being nominated. لennavecia 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually. I found that article by clicking a link on it fro the mainpage. When I saw that it was undergoing an AfD, I closed it. Our readers should not be seeing a debate, such as I saw. Best. Synergy 12:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't readers see AfDs? I've seen plenty of IPs come in and make reasonable arguments when they've clearly just stumbled upon the debate from reading the article. GlassCobra 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically from the main page. The mainpage lists out best content, so if we are prompting our readers to view articles from the mainpage, whilst simultaneously arguing to delete them, it will confuse our readers and editors. Synergy 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:SK notes, it should be removed from the main page before nominating for AFD. In this case, it had already been nominated four days prior to going on the main page, thus should have been immediately removed following the inappropriate placement in DYK. لennavecia 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It does not deal with the situation I found, because it does not allow for pages where DYK didn't know about an AfD. I try to follow the spirit of the message, which is that if its on the main page, it should not also be in an AfD. This was an action that was not overturned, and never questioned...until my RfA. My issues with AfDs were those where people object to them on my talk page, and overturn them. I have not had a single AFD overturned because an admin disagreed with my actions. Regards. Synergy 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A small note re "Right. Oilseed rape. Nice try." as I suspect a lot of readers here will know that plant better as Canola. I don't understand why Giano mentioned it, but since he did I see no problem in Synergy's reply. ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused there too. It took me a second to locate what he meant, and oilseed rape was interesting. Synergy 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems Synergy you failed to do your homework properly - big mistake. Synergy is a hybrid oil seed rape, many bought the product full of excitement and hope, it was well heralded and promoted, but in spite of a huge showy yellow flowers the yield was ultimately disappointing. Draw your own conclusions, but never skim over one of my analogies. Giano (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose -Der Wohltempierte Fuchs, Dark, and his former adopter. Not look like the candidate's behavior has been much improved from the last RfA.--Caspian blue 12:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Not yet, per David fuchs. May support in a couple of months if I see improvement in communication skills.--Pattont/c 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per concerns in above posts.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Fuchs, Dark, and JV. Syn's clearly still got issues in the XFD arena, which have plagued all his RFAs thus far. The IRC cabalism/GAMEyness makes me uncomfortable as well. GlassCobra 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (cross-posted at WT:RFA#My RfA) Post withdraw-reopening comment In my honest opinion, this is a bad call. You did indeed withdraw prematurely, which reflects poorly on you to begin with, as well as your ability to take constructive criticism; however, to re-open it now shows poorly for your judgment, especially since you had already stated that you would not run again. The fact that you were persuaded otherwise so quickly is troubling, and smacks of even more IRC caballery, which was already a problem. You also posted [at WT:RFA], then wasted almost no time asking for it to be re-opened instead of waiting for comments here, as you supposedly desired. Your reasons for withdrawing in the first place [42] are also troubling and don't exactly speak well for your decision. No one's passed RFA unanimously in months, if memory serves, and given how hostile an environment it is, it's pretty unreasonable to withdraw just because you don't want any opposes. GlassCobra 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Jenna and and Der Wohltempierte Fuchs. If the concerns are addressed I will support next time around. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lara says it all, really. Sorry, but the only time I ever see you you're throwing yourself into other people's drama, generally inflaming whatever the situation is. Being willing to get involved in difficult areas is a good characteristic; stubbornly arguing with anyone who ever questions you isn't. – iridescent 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Jennavecia and David Fuchs. There's a disturbing attitude taken towards some of his work here that isn't right for an admin to have. ThemFromSpace 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Kudos for the correct use of "comprises". Although I can't support currently (based on answers to several of the questions, seemingly (over)use of IRC, and the appearance of dramaproneness, i.e. the withdrawal and subsequent relisting of this request), I hope you continue your work at the sockpuppet board and elsewhere. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I still remember when, last summer, this user attempted to speedy close an MfD I spent a lot of time working on after it had been open for 2.5 hours, citing WP:SNOW. An admin reopened it and it ironically ended in a deletion. Synergy's other edits to that MfD indicated a strong opinion on the issue, making the closure inappropriate not only due to the short time he left it open but also due to his personal bias. His userpage from back then has conveniently been deleted, but shortly after attempting to close this MfD, he placed a missive there about XfD that's quoted in this diff. The statement, to me, indicates a dislike for so-called "deletionists". I care nothing for XfD and I don't believe I've participated in any others excepting the aforementioned MfD, but it doesn't seem like this is someone with the correct temperament for objectively closing XfDs or deciding what gets speedy deleted. In the ensuing exchanges on his talk page, documented until here, I note that Synergy excused his actions but never actually acknowledged that there was any problem with his behavior. No, best leave the admin duties to more objective personalities. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Last summer is getting on for a year ago, do you have more recent examples of this candidates lack of objectivity ? Nick (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't, and I won't be digging. Just offering my opinion based on my interaction with the candidate. I do consider behavior from a year ago to be fair game for commentary, and I don't think people's temperament or habits change much within a year. Just ask my wife. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's absolutely no need to apologise, I'm only asking for my own benefit, I'm rather sitting on the fence at the moment and I'm really just looking for more information to help me make a decision one way or the other. Nick (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Laser brain: I'm sorry you feel the way that you do, and apologize if this is because of my actions. I'm not sure if you were aware of my comments to Balloonman about the project at my editor review. If I may, I will italicize my view on this: I think you are largely misrepresenting my stance on the Sharkface Award Center MfD. My initial interpretation was that a few of the members were "poisoning the well" and those individuals needed to be dealt with aside from the project which under my observation was created largely in good faith. I chose to !vote keep since its underlying intention was to improve the pedia. I didn't like all of the projects goals and activities, but felt that it needed drastic reformation to exist, and this couldn't happen with it being deleted. Once I noticed that its creator was willing to let it be deleted to start over, I changed to delete. I am in fact a supporter of projects that show evidence of improving articles, as I saw such evidence before it was deleted. Regards. Synergy 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your sharing this information. However, it actually illustrates my point. Your feelings about whether the page should be kept or deleted are strictly irrelevant when you are acting as the closer. What you've quoted above explains your position on the issue, but as the closer you are only to judge consensus and not consider your own opinion. You don't have a stance on an MfD that you choose to close, for all intents and purposes. Do you see the disconnect here? --Laser brain (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but to me it looks more like you are holding a grudge here LB. This was an issue presented in my previous RfA, and has not happened again. I also noted this in my comments to DarkFalls and Lara (Jennavecia). Best. Synergy 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - all the people above make very good points, especially David Fuchs and Lara. And stopping the process, declaring that he will never run again only to have the RFA reopened a few hours later? No thanks. Tex (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating a comment I've already made on Synergy's talkpage: although I opposed for other reasons, surely "actually, on reflection I realise I did the wrong thing and am going to revert my actions" is a good thing in an admin? Most of our pointless drama is caused by people who refuse to admit they ever do anything wrong. (A category in which I'd frequently include Synergy in the past, it has to be said.) – iridescent 21:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Apologies, but I don't feel that the candidate possesses the necessary demeanour and judgment I like to see from administrators (not to say that all administrators = good judgment and an affable demeanour... just look at me, haha). oceeConas tá tú? 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. oppose per lack of understanding of blp policy. Spartaz Humbug! 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Two reasons. First, your answer to question 6 from GlassCobra is an exercise in obfuscation; either you have an established procedure for honoring requests for withdrawal or reconfirmation of your admin privileges--which you would openly advertise on your user page and pledge to enforce without delay if certain ironclad criteria are met--or you do not intend to honor such requests. Your "non-denial denial" gave me serious pause.
    Secondly, your response to question 9 from Skomorokh also set off my BS-meter. His question was straight-forward; you have, in fact, failed three previous RFAs across two usernames, the last of which prompted you to withdraw early and pen an essay extolling the virtues of deferring adminship in favor of fully dedicating one's self to editing. You appeared to have had an epiphany...but then spent most of your time between your last RFA and now building up admin career capital by acting as an unflagged helper in various high-visibility areas in Project space. You made extra sure to shake lots of hands, cultivate support on IRC and avoid controversy. In short, you learned how to sail through an RFA. This is a major change from your previously consistent attitude, and more than enough to make me wonder. In admins, I value transparency, blunt honesty, and above all, a healthy degree of zen-like selflessness manifested through the ability to function without constant praise or attention. Your less-than-fully-honest responses, when coupled with your prior actions as outlined above, give me cause to believe that you would be an unsuitable admin at this time. Bullzeye contribs 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is assume bad faith all around. I clearly stated the conditions for my recall in my answer. I am yet to be an admin, so why would I post recall material to my userpage? My answer to Skomorokh's question was also straightforward. I only created the article, I did not write it. Members of the community did (as mentioned on my userpage). If you will notice, there are plenty of non controversial and non negative reasons why someone would not wish to be an admin. Lastly, its bad faith to assume I have somehow gamed this system. Synergy 12:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, gaming the system is the point of RfA. --Ali'i 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Its the affirmation of trust from the community. Synergy 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. My mistake. Apologies. --Ali'i 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - per Fuchs, Dark, and JV, and GlassCobra.WackoJackO 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Withdrawing and declaring you will never run again, then reopening the RFA within a few hours, illustrates a temperament that is unsuited to adminship. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I was not previously familiar with this editor, as far as I know. What I read here makes him sound like a kid in a chat room. More of that is unhelpful. Friday (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 29, married, and I use IRC and other means by which editors can contact me...Synergy 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should be added to Friday's little list of so-called problem editors! :) Majorly talk 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drama-stirring is unhelpful. Shoo. Friday (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, coming from you, and your little shit-stirring lists in your userspace? How dare you "shoo" me - I'm not an animal. This is a discussion, if you make false statements, accept someone is going to correct your errors. Majorly talk 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, please take your vendettas elsewhere. RxS (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What vendetta(s) are these? Majorly talk 16:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To get back on topic.. alright, you're not a kid. But, seeming like one is still an issue. I guess I should more accurately call this a concern over temperament, like a few people have expressed above. Friday (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a much better characterisation; one that I could go so far as agreeing with, to an extent. Perhaps you might see my point that labelling everyone who has slight temperament issues as an "IRC kid" isn't productive or sensible. "Has temperament issues" works so much better, and means so much more, and is so much less offensive and insulting than "Sounds like an IRC kid". Majorly talk 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I was not going to vote, but per Stifle mostly. I'm also in agreement with Iridescent, GlassCobra, and Jennavecia. I think you should be focusing on your judgement, espescially on sensitive things. That can be as WP:SPI, where I have seen some dubious clerk endorses. More or less, in some cases you just rely on the person - I don't want an admin to do that, espescially when you have the blocking tool. Taking action just because you trust the person does not mean the action in itself is right, nor should it be done for that matter. As I think this is going to be questioned, see this diff to see what I mean. One minute, and you've already done your checking? I do not think so. I'm sorry if it seems I'm reaching too far conclusions, but I think it's justified. There are more examples: [43] (5 minutes here, possible, but that's rather quick in my opinion), [44] - I'm not quite sure here, but "I wasn't sure about it, but another clerk has told me to try anyway" - Is also a bit worrying; this suggests to me, that even though Synergy does not know the proper action, they go ahead. That is not something I would like to see from a future administrator. Good luck, and nothing personally. RfX isn't all Synergy. I'm sure you will probably make it one day. At this point - if you do make it, please heed the opposes. Despite my opposition - I think you're a good candidate, but I think you need a bit more improvement. With regrets, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why were your concerns not raised prior to my RfA? Cases you listed were discussed prior to my actions. Especially ones where you and I edited together. Why would you make this appear like there was no communication between clerks? Synergy 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Prone to hissy fits. ViridaeTalk 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose temperament issues.JimmySmitts (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Reluctant oppose. It feels harsh to oppose someone on their fourth RFA, because it means he clearly wants a great deal to be an administrator - and quite possibly Synergy would be a net positive as one. But there are just too many concerns raised by the other opposers. Firstly, there's this comment: [45] That's the kind of comment (shortcut for 'X is a whiny bitch') I don't ever want to see at a deletion discussion, least of all with reference to a real person. Secondly, there's the early closes of AFDs, like these [46][47]. Those decisions aren't hugely problematic in practice, but they go against the spirit of AFD - an article is supposed to have 5 days (now 7) of discussion, even if it looks like consensus has been reached sooner. Thirdly, there's the behaviour towards Giano, which wasn't exactly helpful. Fourthly, there's the SPI comments referred to above - e.g. endorsing an assessment of a user one minute after it has been made. That's worryingly hasty for someone who wants to work in that area. None of these factors individually would be enough to oppose over, but taken together they weaken my confidence in Synergy; I can't say I like the IRC cliqueyness, either (or the sudden closing and re-opening of this RFA). Despite all this, I do think Synergy could make a good administrator, and I expect he will successfully pass RFA eventually. But I don't think I can support him this time, unfortunately - sorry. Robofish (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Prior to me reading the contents of this page, I wanted to support for his assistance at WP:SPI. However, after reading the arguments presented on both sides, I guess I have to oppose. Unwithdraw the RfA just after 3 hours of withdrawing, combining with XfD mishaps, and also what Robofish said about providing an SPI assessment 1 minute after it has been posted tell me you act too hastily in many situations. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OhanaUnited: If you click the link to this one minute endorsement, you will see it is a self endorsed request for CU from Kanonkas. All I did was fix the template so CU can see it was endorsed, and commented that it was now endorsed. I believe Kanonaks is forgetting it was he who had endorsed. Synergy 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Closing and re-opening this RfA within 3 hours is a bit too hasty and temperamental for me. You want to be an admin or you don't. Yintaɳ  23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Regretfully, per Lara and DarkFalls. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - Synergy, you've many positive edits to WP, so I'm not going to oppose. I can't support because of something Jenna pointed out above - "He managed 41 supports in less than 12 hours, which seems impressive, but many of the names are those I recognize from IRC ...". AdjustShift (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can attest that I saw no form of canvassing on IRC. FlyingToaster 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. And for what it's worth, I recognize people in the oppose section from IRC as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AdjustShift: I understood perfectly. No worries. :) Synergy 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I speak to synergy on IRC sometimes and I opposed...--Pattont/c 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fought with Synergy on IRC, am not his friend, and I supported. I think the IRC stuff is a mixed bag. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very sound point Ottava. IRC is indeed a mixed bag. Good point, and something I for one will consider more. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem with IRC is that it contributes to opacity. This is perhaps especially at issue when it comes to RFA. There's clearly a parallel conversation going on here, to which many of us are not party. That parallel conversation seems to shape this RFA (and no doubt not solely this RFA), indeed in some ways to distort it. I find that troubling--and, as I hope is clear, not simply in this instance. I also think that reliance on IRC is especially problematic for an admin. It can mean that his or her decisions on wiki appear to come from nowhere, as they are informed by these parallel conversations that are unseen by the majority. I realize, however, that others have different views of IRC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with you Jb - I find that decisions or actions based on IRC discussion is about as good an idea as basing it on conversation at Wikipedia Review. The fact that I think it is a bad idea does not, however, mean it is certainly so - I just happen to think it is and I'm not yet so arrogant as to think my view is the be all and end all. For this reason I was fairly gratified to note the comments by Ottava that are evidence that IRC is not perhaps the cabal some think it is. I have, however, long ago had my access removed to the admin IRC chanel (at my request) prefering to keep things on this website wherever possible (I'm pragmatic but 99.9% of stuff regarding wikipedia should be on Wikipedia IMHO and WP:BEANS for the 0.1% before anyone asks) Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If IRC "distorts" RfAs then I would like to point out that a regular group of around 15 people that frequently spend time with each other on IRC tend to vote enmasse support (sometimes NBD, sometimes Why Not, etc) in general. To single out this RfA in general would be to do Synergy a disservice, as many of the IRC supporters are of that group that tend to support everyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But I could be a special case. A good 70% of the IRC vote on my RfA was in the oppose section. Many of the IRC people didn't vote but informed me personally that they would have opposed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per the guy above. Good guy, but there's a small niggling worry that is stopping me from supporting. Sceptre (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I wish you the best but actively failing to adequately answer the question I posed doesn't help. As an admin, you'll be allowed to deal with those kinds of situations and I'd like to know what you'd do and your knowledge on the subject. That said, outside of this, I see no reason to oppose, so I'm going with neutral. — BQZip01 — talk 22:40, 16 April 2009 (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_2&oldid=1255827032"