Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Synergy

Edit count for Synergy

User:Synergy

   run at Sat Sep 6 02:36:35 2008 GMT

   Category talk:         9
   Category:              14
   Image:                 1
   Mainspace              6392
   Portal talk:           1
   Portal:                64
   Talk:                  1185
   Template talk:         14
   Template:              25
   User talk:             2249
   User:                  582
   Wikipedia talk:        537
   Wikipedia:             3298
   avg edits per page     1.81
   earliest               19:47, 22 April 2006
   number of unique pages 7961
   total                  14371

   2006/4  24
   2006/5  466
   2006/6  933
   2006/7  3025
   2006/8  3356
   2006/9  0
   2006/10 0
   2006/11 0
   2006/12 0
   2007/1  43
   2007/2  22
   2007/3  0
   2007/4  0
   2007/5  0
   2007/6  0
   2007/7  0
   2007/8  2
   2007/9  0
   2007/10 0
   2007/11 0
   2007/12 0
   2008/1  0
   2008/2  0
   2008/3  881
   2008/4  681
   2008/5  783
   2008/6  1021
   2008/7  1473
   2008/8  1453
   2008/9  208

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

                    Mainspace
   71 [2]Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
   64 [3]Aleister Crowley
   48 [4]Ordo Templi Orientis
   47 [5]Stella Matutina
   29 [6]Hermeticism
   29 [7]Magical motto
   27 [8]Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette
   25 [9]Florence Farr
   25 [10]Hiram Abiff
   22 [11]Billie Lee Turner
   20 [12]Kybalion
   20 [13]Wirt H. Wills
   16 [14]The All
   16 [15]Geomantic figures
   16 [16]Richard Montgomery

                         Talk:
   194 [17]Aleister Crowley
   122 [18]Ordo Templi Orientis
   120 [19]Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
   49  [20]Stella Matutina
   29  [21]Golden Dawn tradition
   27  [22]Thelema
   21  [23]Hiram Abiff
   18  [24]The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
   14  [25]Magick
   13  [26]Thoth
   13  [27]Goetia
   11  [28]Hermeticism
   11  [29]Sex magic
   10  [30]Abramelin oil/Archive 1
   9   [31]Michael Behe

      Category talk:
   6 [32]Stubs
   2 [33]Secret societies

           Category:
   5 [34]Stubs
   3 [35]Epidemiology journals
   2 [36]Goetic demons

                  Portal:
   8 [37]Occult
   5 [38]Occult/Things you can do
   5 [39]Occult/Selected picture
   5 [40]Occult/Selected biography
   4 [41]Occult/Articles
   4 [42]Occult/Selected article
   4 [43]Occult/Did you know
   3 [44]Occult/Quotes
   3 [45]Occult/WikiProjects
   3 [46]Occult/Categories
   3 [47]Occult/Quotes/Archive
   2 [48]Occult/Intro
   2 [49]Hermetica/Selected article/1
   2 [50]Occult/Related portals
   2 [51]Occult/Selected biography/Archive

            Template:
   7 [52]Occult navigation
   6 [53]Serial killer opentask
   3 [54]User WikiOccult
   2 [55]Noteafd

   Template talk:
   8 [56]Mfdbacklog
   4 [57]Failed
   2 [58]Afd

                        User:
   140 [59]Nixeagle/Big Stubs/List
   106 [60]Synergy/Status
   93  [61]Synergy/Sandbox
   44  [62]Synergy/Activities
   17  [63]Synergy/MfD
   14  [64]Synergy/monobook.js
   13  [65]Triddle/stubsensor/20070716/16
   10  [66]Nixeagle/Big Stubs/List 3
   10  [67]Nixeagle/WikiDiscussion Manager/Features
   10  [68]Kmweber/Adminship
   8   [69]King Vegita/Hermetic alchemy
   8   [70]Nixeagle/Big Stubs/List 2
   6   [71]King Vegita
   5   [72]Nixeagle/WDM/Welcome
   4   [73]Masssiveego/votingsurvey

              User talk:
   439 [74]Synergy
   59  [75]Keeper76
   36  [76]King Vegita
   36  [77]999
   35  [78]Aaron Brenneman/Archives/9
   27  [79]999/Archive 1
   27  [80]Jennavecia
   21  [81]Hanuman Das/Archive 5
   20  [82]Jpgordon
   18  [83]Collectonian
   18  [84]Bdj
   18  [85]Ryulong
   15  [86]JMax555
   14  [87]Synergy/Suggestions
   13  [88]TenPoundHammer

                          Wikipedia:
   204 [89]Miscellany for deletion
   176 [90]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   136 [91]Administrators' noticeboard
   54  [92]Help desk
   53  [93]Suspected copyright violations
   49  [94]Computer help desk/cleanup/stubsensor/20060717/4
   40  [95]Changing username
   38  [96]Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot 2
   38  [97]Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot
   36  [98]WikiProject Occult
   36  [99]Usernames for administrator attention
   36  [100]Requests for page protection
   36  [101]Requests for adminship
   34  [102]Computer help desk/cleanup/stubsensor/20060717/3
   27  [103]Computer help desk/cleanup/stubsensor/20060717/2

                   Wikipedia talk:
   147 [104]Requests for adminship
   43  [105]Speedy keep
   31  [106]Articles for deletion
   26  [107]Ignore all rules
   20  [108]Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot
   18  [109]WikiProject Occult
   16  [110]Requests for mediation
   14  [111]Miscellany for deletion
   14  [112]Administrators' noticeboard
   11  [113]Mediation Cabal
   9   [114]Requests for comment/Majorly
   9   [115]Notability (criminal acts)
   9   [116]Requests for adminship/Eagle 101
   9   [117]Non-admin closure
   9   [118]Blocking policy

   If there were any problems, please [119]email Interiot or post at
   [120]User talk:Interiot.

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia Review

I'd like to try to clear something up about this, as I mentioned in the oppose section. I do not contribute there. I don't even know who maggot3 is. You need a non free e-mail address to become a member, and I don't have one. Synergy 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the tape: the above isn't true (the bit about the freemail address, not the bit about Syn's membership); if you don't provide a non-free email address, you need to prove your Wikipedia identity in some way (notify them of an edit you're going to make before you make it, for example) to prevent impersonation. – iridescent 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, Maggot3 could be any one. Maggot3 is not the same as synergeticmaggot so impersonation may not be a concern on their end. Heck, if somebody came to them wanting to use Maggot3, would they know that Synergeticmaggot existed? I doubt it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying – the above isn't me accusing Syn of being Maggot3, purely a correction on their ID verification procedures. (They allow freemail address from "high rank" wikipedians, as they understand why we're reluctant to give them identifying information). – iride scent 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for the clarification. I wanted to make sure that you weren't implying that Synergy was misrepresenting the ID Verification process to conceal his identity. Lacking evidence to the contrary, we have to take him at his word that it isn't him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I'd like someone, possibly from the neutral section or at least a neutral observer, to show me the diff that everyone thinks I am being incivil in. AFAIK, I have never been warned for civility issues, yet I'd like to see what conversation was incivil, so I may reflect upon it. Synergy 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering where they are coming from too, as far as I see you are just about a decent an everyone else. - Icewedge (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last response

I won't be here when this RfAs time expires and its closed (I will be at work). I just have one last thing to say here. This is going to look really bad, but I am objecting to most of the opposition, and I believe I have good reason for doing so. I've found a number of the opposes to be without merit, or baseless. This is not to say they are not entitled to their opinion, and should be discounted but that they do not establish that I cannot be trusted with these new buttons. I won't even speculate the reasons why they have opposed this RfA. My general feeling is that they have not properly reviewed my contribs, and are probably not realizing they have made an error of judgement. Here now I would like to address these concerns:

Oppose number 1 (giggy): The oppose is based on a link to my article contributions, though lacks an actual comment on them. Also linked is oppose per Editorofthewiki; (the short version: I'm a policy wonk) and GlassCobra (I close XfD's too fast; didn't mention my dispute with Collectonian). I feel that these are non issues because regardless of how I view policies, there is no supporting evidence that I misuse them, or cannot be trusted because of my views (not to mention my answer to question 5d clearly shows a difference in my last RfA). Nor are there diffs provided that I have continued to close XfDs too fast. He later seems to think my answer to question 5d contradicts itself. I don't see how. I clearly said that IAR should be invoked rarely, if ever (Which means not very often), and go on to stipulate hypothetically how to use it, and how I think it gets used.
- Re. your contribs; you may wish to read my 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC) comment, first sentence. I feel these are issues, even if you don't. Giggy (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose number 2 (iridescent): Again, there is the accusation that I have a "policy is there to be enforced" mentality (with no diffs). She claims to have gone through every AfD contribution of mine in August and convieniently ignores this delete, this delete, and this delete I initiated all from this month to further her point about my being an inclusionist, which I'm not but would make no difference if I were. All the while not showing one XfD closed wrong since my last RfA (besides the one I made mention of in my opening statement of this RfA). She then goes on to add to her rationale that I disagreed with a crat about optional questions...am I not allowed to do this? Lastly, she applies IAR to an article I created, accusing me of creating fancruft. This article she links meets our notability guidelines, which was the only reason I created it.

Oppose number 3 (Fut.Perf): While I did in fact show poor judgement on the semantic side of the debate (divining the nature of Lucyintheskywithdada's comments), most people did not know that the reason I brought this to his talk page was because he wanted a block/ban on Lucyintheskywithdada because their comments were very grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. No, we don't block because of this. I was wrong in my approach but I was not wrong in my judgement of the full situation.

Oppose number 4 (EJF): I'm being opposed because of someone else's comments about another user who I do not even recall ever speeking to.

Oppose 6 and 7 I will lump together: These are accusations that I have abusive and incivil commentary (no diffs).

Oppose 9 (Miranda): I'm being opposed because I one day wish to help at USURP, and would need to delete edits to help out. And this somehow does not show a need for the tools.

Strong Oppose (jbmurray): For the most part, hes right. For some time I did not think I was wrong. But within a month, I agreed with another users observations at my editor review that I was wrong.

Oppose 12 (GlassCobra): This oppose is based on the fact that I shouldn't be closing XfDs. I have no topic ban, or sanction for XfDs. There are no diffs provided that show that I have not changed my ways. when I have. Yet he goes on to say that as far as my mainspace contribs are concerned I have a total lack of involvement in this area. Even though I have created a number of articles, helped to bring an article GA, and over 42% of my contributions are to the mainspace.

Oppose 13 (Deacon of Pndapetzim): He thinks that the issues in my previous RfA have not gone away, though not citing why. Overall, my fast XfD closures were what got me opposed last time, and I'm assuming he means those. Yet there is no mention of any XfD closures that were wrong since my last RfA.

Oppose 17 (Pmanderson): This is an odd oppose. The assumption to Xeno's question, was that I have blocked a user, and they are requesting unblock. From there, I assume someone notifies me, and I am to make a judement call. My judgment call was to give one last chance, so they can reform. I said nothing about reversing another admin (which is the more frowned upon action).

Oppose 22 (RyanPoss): He seems to misunderstand why I edited his Encyclopedia Dramatica article. And infers from there that I must have either been trolling or attempting to "out" editors. This was not the case at all. I used a template to propose the article for deletion giving my reason in the edit summary.

Many of these above opposing points are what others are looking to when opposing. While I know there is absolutely no way that my RfA will close favorably for me, I want this RfA to be future evidence of how a good request from an experienced user can go bad by the mere suggestion of doubt with no backing evidence. That is all. Synergy 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I know. tl:dr[reply]