Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] SynergeticMaggot

Final (32/31/5) Ended 20:55, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) – SynergeticMaggot very much reminds me of my early days on Wikipedia - A hardworking janitor devoting a lot of his time welcoming and helping newcomers, doing stub-cleanups, and vandal-fighting. He has also shown much interest in the sysop process of Articles for Deletion, being concerned of a possible backlog has started discussion on the feasability for non-sysops to take over part of the job. Personally I think it'd be better if he were to actually hold the mop and bucket. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the mop and bucket. SynergeticMaggot 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: In a word, backlogs, although I think I'd enjoy doing all of them. Most improtantly, taking care of all xfD's(WP:MfD's, WP:SFD's, WP:TFD's, WP:RFD's, WP:IFD's, WP:CFD's, and lets not forget my fav., WP:AfD's ), copyvio's, speedy deletes, moves, blocks, protects, unprotects, help via WP:RAA, and watching all the important or semi-important pages that admins watch (such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, etc. etc.). I'll also continue to do my normal chores and various projects I am currently in (if I have time mind you, admin tasks might prove to keep me busy but who knows, I love to keep busy), such as recent changes patrol, new pages patrol, welcoming committee, mediation cabal, stub sorting and stub removing, and counter-vandalism unit (please note that I prefer not to call it fighting vandalism, just fixing minor or the usual mistakes made by new users or unfamiliar editors). Also I'd continue to help others through IRC wikipedia-bootcamp, help desk, and contributors' help page, as I'm a member of Concordia and Esperanza. Plus I'm just starting out in advocating, and I've created a WikiProject called WikiProject Occult that I'm looking forward to getting it off the ground.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Anything I do I take pride in on Wikipedia, so I guess anything I listed in the above response under currect projects. As for contributing via non backlog means, I think I'm most proud of my additions to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (rewrote from scratch) with the help of Hanuman Das, saving Stella Matutina from deletion by sourcing the whole article and expaning, and anything else found here. I'm also please I was able to help other admins on AfD, by closing a few (all of my closes:here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: My past conflicts between other editors usually result in friendships. I'd be naive to assume I would never run into them again on similar article topics. When I first started editing, I ran into conflict on the Aleister Crowley articles talk page. Although it caused me stress, I have since left this behind and started anew with dispute resolution by becoming a med. cabalist. This allows me to see both sides of a conflict with much clarity, and also allows me a venue to help. So in other words, no users now cause me stress now. :p But I'm not sure that any editors/users can say that they havent been in a conflict. But if they havent, I applaud them for their capabilities of never being in one, and making sense to other editors who have strong feelings about an article they wish to edit, without it resulting in reverts. These are true role models for Wikipedia.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user SynergeticMaggot (over the 4605 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 99 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 31, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 22, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 87.09%
Average edits per day: 249.57 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 588 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.83%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4605 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.28% (13)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.74% (34)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 32.01% (1474)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.67%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2380 | Average edits per page: 1.93 | Edits on top: 26.95%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 11.31% (521 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 40.76% (1877 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.43% (296 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 35.59% (1639 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 43.97% (2025) | Article talk: 18.74% (863)
User: 2.84% (131) | User talk: 14.68% (676)
Wikipedia: 18.37% (846) | Wikipedia talk: 1.26% (58)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.09% (4)

• See SynergeticMaggot's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC) ^(Source*) using Interiot's tool*:

Username SynergeticMaggot
Total edits 4585
Distinct pages edited 2372
Average edits/page 1.933
First edit 15:47, April 22, 2006
 
(main) 2017
Talk 859
User 130
User talk 674
Category 2
Category talk 4
Wikipedia 841
Wikipedia talk 58

• See SynergeticMaggot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• I have other comments I'd like to make, but I'm unsure if I can leave them here, so if someone who has more experience with these requests see's this, please move it! I'd like to thank Mailer diablo for nominating me, as it was very unexpected. I've also been looking over RfA for some time now, and know that there are optional questions, so bring them on! :p

Support

1. Support - works well with other editors even during disputes, discusses thoroughly on talk pages, is open to other editors' positions and sometimes evem changes his position based on well-reasoned arguments. I think I introduced him to AfDs and since then have seen him take on all kinds of tasks beyond what the average newer editor usually does. —Hanuman Das 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I trust the nominator, and see nothing wrong with this user after a cursory glance of their work. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 20:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support I originally voted "oppose" on the basis of inexperience, but in viewing the candidates talk page contributions, I found several examples of exceptional skill and maturity, especially in dealing with conflicts, such as this thread. I have found enough knowledge of policy, and enough demonstration of capability for me to ignore my usually high standards for time with the project. Good luck, AdamBiswanger1 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Great contributor, even if most of your contributions are to minor cleanup. Roy A.A. 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Support yet another "I thought you already were" vote from me. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Oppose because the cadidate arguing with the oppose votes. Viridae^Talk 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Support The nominee really could help us out significantly with the extra admin tools. Three months and four thousand edits is certainly enough, as long as the nominee demonstrates understanding of how things work, dedication, and trust. I don't see anything that makes me think otherwise. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. SynergeticMaggot clearly has both the desire and the ability to help us out, the answers to the questions are good also. I fail to see how we would benefit from making him wait for adminship, he is ready for it now. Rje 23:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Even though this user hasn't been registered for 5 months (as stated in my standards), they have accomplished a lot in their short time here. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I think he is very skilled in nominating unnecessary articles for deletion. The greatest man in the universe 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   This is User:'sed an admitted sockpuppet account of indef banned User:1028 as well as co-operator of a joint account User:The Breakfast Club. Gwernol 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Support per Hanuman Das. Joe 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Nominator's support, I almost forgot. =P - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support As a new member on Wikipedia, I'm impressed by the way he has contributed and helped the newbies. From some of my experiences, he always improves my articles and warn me (not straight to delete it) which is good so I can improve it rather than lose it. So I'm a newbie and I see he is very helpful especially for the newbies and I'm sure he will be a good admin. I also think, quality is more important than quantity, so his time on wiki and the number of edits are not that important (although it is still important), but the most important thing is how he can contribute and help the others with his somewhat small number of edits. -- Imoeng 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. I've seen this user around a bit and I'm convinced that this user would make a good admin. DarthVader 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support excellent contributor for just a 3 month stay, brilliant vandal bopper. Would do well with the tools, although it would be even better if you slowed down just a touch (which you say you've done) in response to what was brought up down below. --james^(talk) 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I agree with most, if not all, of the positive comments above. -999 (Talk) 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks like a hard-working and dedicated editor, and extremely unlikely to abuse the tools. I see a few incidents of growing pains, but I can't begrudge anyone those. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. A tireless contributor, SynergeticMaggot, despite having had made a couple of mistakes in the past and being a relatively new editor, would most likely not abuse admin powers. --Gray Porpoise 19:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support He has almost 5k edits, how can this not be enough for some people?? He also seems like a good user, so we should be happy to hand over the mop. Seivad 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support — FireFox ^(talk) _{12:28, 01 August '06}

    Support Stubbleboy 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral vote. Stubbleboy 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per above. Very sensible person, good for AfDs especially. --Musaabdulrashid 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Whilst we've had our differences they've generally been personable and productive dialogues. This user is certainly developing and could use the admin role usefully.ALR 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support a hardworking editor who already knows his way around. Kimchi.sg 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support If Mailer trusts him, so do I. Here's to getting out of Singapore. Karmafist 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per nom. Ryūlóng 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Good users make good admins. I've had some dealings with SM and I'm glad he's running... just a little sad he won't make it this time around. ---J.S (t|c) 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support: I am sure all intelligent editors would learn! He does not have to learn about theory of relativity, but few policies of wikipedia. Yes, I agree that learning to twist the policies would be difficult! --Bhadani 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Industrious and capable. I have no objection to the username.--Runcorn 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per above, plus appreciation for his having just answered my WP:help question within two minutes of my having posted it. Since consensus is not going to be reached, urge candidate to continue as an active editor, address issues raised by oppose and neutral voters, and re-apply down the trail. No comment on username, but if you do change it, let us know. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support very efficent, clears through backlogs like a bulldozer. Yes he is new, but he knows the policy fairly well, and what he does not know he is willing to listen to others. (saw on IRC) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support why not? Semperf 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. From what I've seen of him, I think he's a pretty high quality guy. Nobody is perfect, and I've appreciated his help in times past. I realize this probably won't succeed, but I'd just like to register that opinion. alphaChimp ^laudare 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Has been here only 3 months, and just about 99% of the last 500 mainspace edits are minor. However this seems to be part of an extensive project. Certainly this user would be a fantastic candidate in a few months, but I cannot ignore time with the project, because time here shows a determination and unwilting interest. Very, very good user, but I'm not so blown away so as to ignore the inexperience. AdamBiswanger1 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to Support AdamBiswanger1 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose I'm sorry, but this candidate seems too new. Three months is really not long enough, esp. considering edit count. However, this candidate should, indeed, be re-submitted in the future when he has more experience. Michael 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Forgive me for asking, but I'd like to know what constitutes as experience here? Is it just that I have only been here for 3 months? Or is it that I dont have experience in such tasks equivalent to that of which an admin does? Also I thank you for your decision and look forward to the clarification :) SynergeticMaggot 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Having been a Wikipedian for three months really does not give one a full range of experiences. I've been on just a bit longer than you and have approximately the same number of edits. Considering such as well as your experience with your limited experience with many of the technicalities of Wikipedia, I think it would be best for you to re-submit in the future, at which time I am certain you will pass through. Right now seems a bit too soon, and I'd like to see just a bit more experience. I would be happy to support your RfA in the future, but I just do not feel you are quite ready yet. Michael

   I don't think that the time matters so much when you make a high number of edits in a short amount of time (as long as they are involved in all aspects of the encyclopedia) what makes someone who has less edits but has been here for a lot longer more experienced? I have noticed SM involed in a variety of areas accross the encyclopedia, obviously picking up a lot on the way. Speaking as a fellow high volume editor, I have no qualms supporting SM because I know just how much you can pick up in a short amount of time. I think that as long as SM has been involved in all aspects, he could not have got this far without knowing policy because he would have been pulled up on it by those he came accross in his travels in the encyclopedia Viridae^Talk 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm afraid the problem with that is the idea of having a large amount of edits in a small time. When voting in the RfA, I usually like to see that a candidate has maintained having a large amount of quality edits over a more extended period, thus illustrating a deeper devotion indicated by both time and involvement on Wikipedia. Michael 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Understood. But the reason I have a large amount of edits in a small time is because I take care of backlogs, and I do this fast. Just wanted to clarify this :) SynergeticMaggot 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose You are a good contributor and editor but I would like to see someone who has been registered to Wikipedia for at least 5-6 months (as stated in my standards). --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose per Mike 7 and my own experience and what I see around here.Voice-of-All 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose sorry, but back in June there were some worrying conversations on your talk page. For example suggesting that you'd only change your confusing signature when you ran for adminship or the mediation cabal. That seems to imply you were aware that this was wrong but would only change it when you believed it was in your self-interest. Later there is this where you say you are going to recreate an article that you are aware fails WP:BIO because you consider guidelines like this something you have to "submit to". You have improved, but these are still relatively recent and you have a habit of resorting to borderline incivil comments such as this. All together these add up to an oppose from me, although with more time I could see supporting you in the future. Gwernol 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. I believe I've cleared this up on Gwernol's talk page. SynergeticMaggot 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   See my response at on the candidate's talk page. I do not consider this "cleared up" and my oppose remains unchanged. Gwernol 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   And I have made an additional response now. Although I never wished to change the decision, but I somehow feel I have to respond to a number of misunderstandings in other places. Is there not somewhere else I can discuss these with others? SynergeticMaggot 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Its entirely appropriate for you to respond, and I agree that this discussion is valuable to more than just you and I. Probably the best place to continue it is on this RfA's talk page. Gwernol 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   (the conversation referred to has been moved, with permnission, the this RfA's talk page) Gwernol 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Uses non-admin rollback equivalent for edits that are not vandalism. [1] [2] [3] Sends vandalism warnings in content disputes. [4] [5] Those templates are for warning anons or newly-registered vandals who may not be aware of the blocking policy. They are not intended for established editors during a disagreement over article content. And a would-be admin should know to subst those templates if he is using them. Also, I don't care for this edit. Since you know King Vegita in real life, that comment, if absolutely necessary, could have been made in private. AnnH ♫ 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Needs more time on the 'pedia. 1ne 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. He was neither offended by it, nor complained about it, yet apologized for what he has said about me on WP:AN. As for giving warnings to him using the test templates...When I did that, it did not say I couldnt use it for the purpose I used it for. But JKelly cleared this up for me. Also, I've commented below about my few mistakes (5 out of a possible 90 accurate vandal reverts) using VandalProof in the Neutral section below. I've also discussed the matter with a moderator of VP on irc channel WP-bootcamp. He has informed me that they are in fact common mistakes that will be fixed in a newer version. SynergeticMaggot 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oops. I just realized that those were content dispute diff's. This was also cleared up by JKelly. Please ignore what I previously said, I had thought that the diff's represented mistakes I had made on recent changes patrol that were cleared up. My apologies. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   As others have also objected to this edit, for the sake of fairness, I'd like to clarify something. Obviously, posting details that could identify another editor in real life is a complete no-no; but I do not consider that that happened in this case. The user in question gives his real name on his user page, along with other personal details, and links to his Myspace profile, which gives more details. SynergeticMaggot did not add any information that would suddenly make it possible for a stalker to track down someone's identiy; it was more a case of some silly bickering between two users who know each other in real life — nothing more. AnnH ♫ 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose per the others above. I don't think it's time yet. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose "Oppose" per AnnH, especially the misuse of vandalism templates. Would support in future after more experience, assuming he tempers the behavior observed by AnnH and others above (also see Andeh's perceptive "Neutral" comment below) --A. B. 10:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: The question came up on the talk page about a checkuser I requested on SynergeticMaggot and other editors in connection with an AfD that was flooded with apparent sockpuppets at the last minute. SynergeticMaggot was cleared. I cannot emphasize enough that this should not be held against him. Someone else happened to unleash what turned out mostly to have been meat puppets/brand new editors voting the same way he voted. It was a pure coincidence in his case. --A. B. 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Per Gwernol's notes and the mis use of VP. Sorry, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per above. Also, I have to add that I do not like the idea of having an admin, who is often perceived as an authority figure on Wikipedia, with a name of "Maggot". Admins need to set good examples, and be aware of the fact that they are often perceived as representatives of Wikipedia culture. Having a pseudonym is one thing, but in my mind, this particular name goes a bit too far, sorry. As such, I would be more comfortable if he created a different handle first. --Elonka 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Changing to Oppose per VP concerns - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    Weak Support waiving my criteria. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Premature. I usually think an admin should have one year of wikipedia presence, or six months at a minimum for exceptional cases. Three months is too short and the inexperience is manifested in some of the diffs and AN/I messages recently involving the candidate. --JJay 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Sorry, must oppose. Not confident that nom has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. 1. Nom marks all edits as minor, and argues that usage is correct per policy. See comments in top thread on this RFA talk page. [6] IMO, few if any of nom's edits should be marked minor. Clearly these edits should be marked major. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 2. On July 27, 2006, nom spams talk pages for support of a proposal. 3. Per concerns raised by AnnH, which do not actually involve mishaps with VP as some other oppose comment indicate. FloNight ^talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comment. Taking this up on talk page.

14. Oppose per pretty much everything that's been said above. -- Steel 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per evidence of need to learn more of wikipedia policy and guidelines, as well as problems noted above. Kukini 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, too new. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per use of VandalProof and odd patterns of marking edits as minor. I understand that marking edits as minor is a matter of personal judgement, but that's not a good judgement call. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per AnnH. Stifle (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I have concerns about the maturity and general Wiki-fu of this candidate, in light of the behaviour AnnH has dug up, and his comments here and on the talkpage. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per the above. --HResearcher 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. SynergeticMaggot would be a good administrator in the future, but he is not ready for the job yet.KV(Talk) 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Comment. SynergeticMaggot has both good and bad qualities. He certainly has developped in his three months the technical proficiency to be an administrator, involving himself in just about every aspect of Wikipedia. He knows AfD, the administrator noticeboard, most of the Wikipedia policies, and other things an administrator should have. However, he lacks the spirit of Wikipedia and has recently used this proficiency to convince me to stop editting for Wikipedia. [12][13][14] He is an ardent deletionist and has opted to use Wikipedia procedures such as AfD rather than work with his opposition to improve the article. When many large chunks of text were deleted without discussion, I reverted, and he accused this of being vandalism [15] to the point of actually threatening blocking without being an administrator. That certainly wasn't good faith. I can vouch that he is not the same as 999, as I have known 999 to edit while SynergeticMaggot was not at the computer. However, since their original skirmishes, they have been working together to get articles they don't like deleted rather than improved. I have faith that one day he will see the err of his ways, but until he does and actually works to improve Wikipedia articles rather than just get them deleted, it would be a bad move for Wikipedia to honor him with this.KV(Talk) 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose (I could've sworn I'd already done this yesterday, but I think I was having trouble connecting to WP at the time.) I'm really not concerned with how long SynergeticMaggot has been editing on WP, as I think that can be (although is not always) an unfair criteria. However, I am very concerned with his interactions with other users, I am in no way convinced that the user fully understands WP's policies and guidelines, and marking pretty much every edit as minor is... odd. In particular, Gwernol and AnnH bring up some important points that need to be addressed. -- Kicking222 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Would you mind giving diffs on the talk page. I'm supposed to be taking these as things to work on. Although I cant see what I've done wrong by you if you dont show me :) Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

23. Weak oppose, username worries me a bit. --CharlotteWebb 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I don't think 3 months is long enough, plus there are too many concerning diffs above that are just too recent to overlook. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose: This user is far too new to be considered an admin. Even 74% for major edit summaries is not enough. And where are the rest of the namespace contribs?! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose I love his edits, but he is too new, according to my critia. If you put him up in a month I'll support him. --Kitia
27. Oppose: My original encouters with this user were positive, in administrative comments that indicated a reasonable, new user. So, though I was surprised to see an RfA so soon, I was favorably compelled to investigate the user further. Before that, however, newly arrived on an (ancillary) Wikipedia IRC channel, he proceeded to try to give me what I can only describe as an abrasive lecture first on article content disputes and, more surprisingly, on how this low-traffic and otherwise friendly channel ought to be run, and then again the next day. I find his comments there, here, and others brought up here to raise flags on civility and AGF. They also indicate a rather peculiar view of policies and practices: whereas he seems to consider the letter of policy to be inviolate and beyond any independent judgment, he also seems to think that matters not fully and explicitly covered in a Policy page are open to whatever personal notions, regardless of long-standing practice and reasonable implications of existing guidelines. His responses to hypothetical questions on the RfA talk page do not relieve these concerns and otherwise show some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia workings. Such concerns and unfamiliarity in combination with brief tenure and my examination of edits lead me to believe that this user must have more experience before being given the keys. —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I didnt seem to understand most of this, but will address any further unofficial optional questions (I believe you gave me 5 of these) on the talk page. I also changed the counter for you. SynergeticMaggot 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

28. Opposeper AnnH. Marginal on time and edits, but appears unready for the tools. :) Dlohcierekim 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per personal attack at the bottom of the page. And the attack is incorrect, as I only changed my vote once from oppose to neutral. Stubbleboy 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose, still doesn't see the need to have changed his signature, argumentative with opposers (and even neutrals) here, marking far too many edits as minor, has only been here three months. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose. Changed from Support because the candidate keeps arguing with the oppose votes. Viridae^Talk 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral obviously a hard worker, the stuff mentioned under oppose by AnnH were just silly mistakes that is caused by using VP at high speeds. User needs to slow down a little, and understand that having arguments across WP to users whom you personally know should be avoided and ignored. Should wait a little longer (3 months?) and re-apply. I can't support due to the confrontation with a user they know in real life, yet I can't oppose because they obviously have good intentions for WP, and time isn't everything.--Andeh 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. Yeah. I had in fact slowed down once I made 5 mistakes out of around 80-85 accurate reverts from vandals. All mistakes were cleared up and I have receieved no warnings. SynergeticMaggot 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   I know, i've had the same problem. Which is why I stopped using VP for now as it doesn't beat manual rc patrol. ;) I don't suggest you withdraw your RfA just yet as you may get some helpful criticism to act upon to ensure your next RfA passes (assuming you will try again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypandy.UK (talk • contribs)

   Oh I wont be withdrawing! Mailer might have to pull me away :p Also, I adding the unsigned for your comment. Thanks, if i'm rejected I will in fact be self nom'ing myself. SynergeticMaggot 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral, I would love to vote support but in my dealings with this user I had one niggle: I was the mediator in the Medcab case Golden Dawn tradition (SynergeticMaggot was not involved in this case) which was highly complicated on a very complicated subject. In fairness a certain user was the only one at fault however I was able to get both sides of the story and was working out a way for everyone to be happy. I left for a 2 day holiday (informing the participants of this) and when I returned SynergeticMaggot had merged the disputed article into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. In fairness this was probably a good solution however I saw no discussion that had taken place over the merge and no agreement to it - he was lucky the dispute did not follow the merge. This was all very well and good however what I found slightly annoying (although I am sure he did not intend it that way) was that he had closed the mediation in my absense and did not even inform me, either of the merge or closing the case, on my talk page, on my talk page. I would worry that given admin tools SynergeticMaggot would perform correct and prudent admin functions but without taking the time to notify any users who may wish to know. - I was informed that my impression of events is incorrect, I apologise to SynergticMaggot and am retracting both my comments and my vote as I feel it would be unfair for me to vote. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
   1. Comment Also I am put off by the users comments here and here as they suggest an inability to accept constructive criticism and opinions. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Response. I apologize that no one informed you about the merger. I had suspected that someone already did, and closed the case. Why leave a case open when it was merged already? Mind you, the case was left open far too long, the merge had taken place weeks ago, and not by me (also there was discussion on the talk page about the merger). Since then I have rewrote the artilce, heavily citing my sources, and no further disputes have arose. I just figured you had forgotten to close the case, and did it for you in a kind gesture. Again, my apologizes and best wishes, you never can tell if a cabalist is MIA. Although you did not however, adress this concern with me before this RfA :) And please explain on the talk page of this RfA what exactly you dislike about my comments, and which ones. SynergeticMaggot 12:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I did that merge. SynergeticMaggot simply reported it in the mediation case. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Here is the link if anyone wishes to view it. SynergeticMaggot 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months. As this is the only criteria missed, and everything else looks great, I will support on reapplication in October. Themindset 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral: seems reasonable person, but some mistakes are due to inexperience. Would prefer to see a period without mistakes like these before supporting. Stephen B Streater 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral: per Stephen B Streater --Guinnog 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral: leaning towards support with more time. Stubbleboy 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for contributing to my RfA. Although I'd like to point out that you changed your decision three times now. Please review the full RfA before doing this again. Thank you. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to oppose per the above personal attack. Perhaps you should review the policy WP:BITE. Thanks! :-) Stubbleboy 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• You interpreted that as me biting? SynergeticMaggot 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually yes I do, and apparently I wasn't the only one per the recent oppose votes above. Thanks! Stubbleboy 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think you are wrong. I kindly directed you to carfully review this RfA, due to your constant decison changing. My apologies if you still feel I bit you. As I was told, you have to have thick skin on Wikipedia. SynergeticMaggot 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• You said "please review the full RFA before doing this again." So I made a mistake, was told about it on my userpage, and corrected it. Besides, there is no rule against changing your vote on an RFA. And yes you should change your username, as a Maggot is a term for the larval stage of the fly life cycle, famous for eating decomposing flesh. Stubbleboy 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which of course is symbolic. I don't expect you to understand it, but if you wished to know more, you should check out WikiProject Occult and my newly created Portal:Occult. A statement that covers why a maggot is preferred to a butterfly (i.e. SynergeticButterfly , plus it doesnt have a good ring to it) can be attained after reading the first "...Did you know?" (I also just created Portal:Thelema) Anyhow, have a nice night. :p SynergeticMaggot 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• You don't expect "me" to understand it. So if you don't expect "me" to understand it, please keep in mind that "they" probably won't understand it either at first glance. No one is going to research your username before quickly drawing a conclusion, true? I rest my case. Stubbleboy 05:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I dont expect anyone to care what my username means, but if you are going to take an issue over it, you could at least read my userpage. Its specified there. The real issue here is whether its offensive or not. And thats a no. SynergeticMaggot 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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.