Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Synergy

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

Synergy[change source]

Synergy (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

Ended: (10/7) on Synergy 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn: I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to express their opinions here. I only wish that one of our current Crats would have commented (just so I could catch a few brief words about my eligability), which would have left the other to handle closing this request. Nevertheless, I believe I have heard from most of the community, enough to know when they are telling me its not time yet. ^_^ Happy editing!

After careful thought I have decided to run for Crat. Now, I know I have not been an editor here for that long, but I am hoping my other qualities (active, article creator, initator of proposals, judgment and time served as an admin) will show a net benefit to this encyclopedia. I want everyone to know, that this is not about wanting power. A number of editors have expressed interest in wanting another Crat around, for minor issues as well as just in case. I then thought about how many likely candidates we have and (no offence to anyone but) according to activity levels (not just through christmas) we don't have many, if any at all. I want the community to know I have the best interests in mind for this project (since making it the wiki I edit most) and also that I won't be leaving if this request fails. I want to also take this time to hear how the community feels about me. Synergy 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:Accept self nomination

Support[change source]

We need another, and I can't see Synergy breaking anything. Majorly ^talk 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eptalon, one of our bureaucrats, has said repeatedly that another bureaucrat would be helpful. Indeed, the need for a bureaucrat to flag editors as "bots" (hopefully soon to be remedied by the proposed introduction of the flood flag) became especially high over the last few days. "So what?", you might ask, "a few days doesn't matter, be patient for goodness sake!!" Well, bureaucratship, like adminship, should be no big deal. Synergy's been one of the most fantastic admins on the project; highly active, friendly and civil, cooperative, and has plenty of good judgement. I have no concerns about Synergy becoming a bureaucrat. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy hasn't been an admin for very long, but I think that he is fair, impartial and will be able to have a good grasp on the bureaucrat tools. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - approx. 500 pages deleted, 100 blocks and 70 pages protected, he has the skills. I'm wary of his numerous indef protects, but the good far outshines the bad, and maybe he'll stop flooding Recent Changes with a few waves of his flag... --Gwib^-(talk)- 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take the time to explain those. I believe most of my indef protects are to templates. This is standard practice on en, and something I feel should be here as well. I'll give an example. One of the stub types we've been using {{bio-stub}}. Now, if a vandal gets by us and makes a very bad edit, it will show up on (as I write this, 3,496 total articles) on every page. Turning one bad edit into possible 3.5 thousand. Also, it takes time for our server to update this change, so it could be on those articles for possibly 4-5 minutes, even though we've reverted the edit to the template. Best. Synergy 01:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates, I'd understand. It's the articles, recreated once or twice, which are indef protected:

02:38, December 27, 2008 Synergy (Talk | changes | block) protected "Leury Fernández" [create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (hist) (change)

02:38, December 27, 2008 Synergy (Talk | changes | block) protected "Lourdes Ibarra" [create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (hist) (change)

02:37, December 27, 2008 Synergy (Talk | changes | block) protected "Oriana Aguero" [create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (hist) (change)

02:19, December 24, 2008 Synergy (Talk | changes | block) protected "Gregorio Graffe" [create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (hist) (change)

etc etc. --Gwib^-(talk)- 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, those ones. We had an ip (which I've blocked, yet there is another who isn't blocked) creating some 10 to 12 articles about real people (more than once), who are not notable. I take biographical content very seriously. These pages should not be recreated, as they may affect real people who are not subject to both our standards, and en.wiki's standards. To prevent this, I did what anyone should have. Synergy 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, remember to unprotect them when the 'threat' is out though, I have a thing for indef protected pages :) --Gwib^-(talk)- 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have to say becareful with that, templates are one thing, articles should just be semi-protected for length of time to make the people give up. -Djsasso (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All have been unprotected, as well as a few from 2006 (not done by me) and other dates ranging from 2007 on. Synergy 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will do fine. Good luck Synergy! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support need more crats, I can't see you stuffing anything up --Chris 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy seems one of the most logical members here. I'd also ask whoever closes this debate to consider whether "not enough time as an admin" opposes should count towards the consensus. If being an admin is "no big deal," being a 'crat is "no big deal whatsoever and may as well be automatically granted to admins"! Soup Dish (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why not enough time as an admin is a reason for opposing an editor for becoming a bureaucrat is because being a bureaucrat is about more trust than administrators because bureaucrats can do things that need stewards to be undone. You have to really be able to trust an editor enough that they will know when and when not to do things. While I think Synergy has been a great sysop, it just hasn't been enough time to trust him with the 'crat flag. Cheers, Razor flame 03:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Bureaucratship status is way overblown; do you not trust Synergy? Admins have more power than bcrats do. Majorly ^talk 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats can do things that need stewards to undo. Nothing an administrator can do needs a steward to undo. Razor flame 04:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, or do you not trust Synergy? Majorly ^talk 04:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust him. Enough said. Razor flame 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You trust him, but you oppose. Gotcha. Majorly ^talk 04:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can trust him to not abuse, but not trust him to not screw up and make a major mistake. The two are different things. Not enough of a history is a very valid reason to oppose, I don't have enough evidence to base a jugement on. I don't just have an arbitrary number I need a person to meet. That would be a different story. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can an active admin not be trusted? It's simply illogical. If he couldn't be trusted , he wouldn't be an admin. But he can be trusted, so what's the deal? Majorly ^talk 15:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about levels of trust, undoing something an admin has done is easy. Undoing something a crat has done is not. Thus it takes a different level of trust. Just like the level of trust to be a good admin is higher than the level of trust to be a trusted admin. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting Synergy is going to promote someone against consensus? What evidence do you have for him doing that? Majorly ^talk 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. All I have said is that I haven't seen anything to prove himself ready yet. And your badgering has pretty much guaranteed that I won't change my !vote now. -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the old "stop badgering me!" meme. Impressive accusation, when it was you originally badgering me, when I haven't even responded to your oppose! If you come up with a proper reason for opposing do let me know. Otherwise, it's completely unfair to Synergy. Majorly ^talk 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact he hasn't prooven himself trustworthy enough of the position of crat isn't a worthy oppose? Then why even have a rfb in the first place if every admin is good enough to be a crat? I'm sorry but burden of proof in the form of track record is on the candidate not on the opposers. And I wasn't badgering, I was responding to your badger of Razorflame. And explaining there was more than one type of trust. Your insinuating bad faith on the part of me and razorflame however is badgering. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has though. We assume he has done so, unless proven otherwise. You've proven nothing, other than to say he's not been an admin for x months. BTW on Meta-wiki, we make every admin a bureaucrat after a certain period. Bureaucratship is not a big deal, and people pretending it is need to get their facts straight. And if I was badgering, so was Razorflame, and you. And it is you who is suggesting bad faith of Synergy, by claiming he can't handle a few extra tools, which are no big deal. But this is a discussion as well as a vote, and anyone who dislikes being responded to on an RFA/B has this advice from me: don't take part if you don't like it. Majorly ^talk 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is about assuming someone won't abuse or do something in bad faith. I am not suggesting he will do something in bad faith. I am saying he doesn't have enough experience yet and is more likely to be prone to mistakes, which is a very different thing. Responding civilly like razorflame and I is encouraged in rfa/b and I have no problem with that sort of question and response. Its your uncivil tone that I have an issue with. BTW you comment about meta making admins crats after a set period of time actually prooves my point on needing to show experience first. Because if meta didn't think they needed to gain experience first then they would grat the crat bit immediately. -Djsasso (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent a bit)Djsasso:Out of curiosity, have you reviewed my history here as an editor, and then as an admin? I wouldn't mind answering any number of questions you may have, in case you do. Synergy 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the level headedness you have shown here has impressed me greatly. I will strike my oppose for now. I am still not sure I could support but I will think about it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this conversation even happening between Djsasso and Majorly? It has nothin to do with the RfB at hand. Can we get back to the RfB please?-- CM 16 ^M_LB 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was directly about this RfB. Did you even read it? -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it was about the validity of an oppose not about Synergy.-- CM 16 ^M_LB 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a newer user, I have been extremely impressed by how much Synergy is willing to help everyone, especially new users. In think he would do great as a Crat. ★ Braingle^{(Contact me + Contribs)} 04:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support We NEED more Bureaucrats. I also think this user would be good at being a crat. Turbo Golf 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We need one more, and one of the existing ones got inactive some time ago. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

~~Oppose~~ Hopefully you won't take this personal as I think you do a wonderful job here is an editor, but I haven't seen you as an admin long enough to know that you could be trusted as a 'crat. That combined with the fact that I don't see a pressing need for another 'crat at the moment pushes me to the oppose side. This is definately a case of WP:NOTNOW and not a case of not ever. Give it a few more months or so as admin and I am sure someone will nom you at the rate you are going with your editing etc. -Djsasso (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking it personal. And I can't argue with your logic, so thanks for weighing in. :) Synergy 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but you haven't spent enough time as an administrator yet, which gives me cause for concern about whether or not you will be able to handle the extra responsibility. I just don't see enough experience as an administrator from you yet. If you had waited a couple more months, I would gladly support you, however, at this time, I just don't think you have enough experience. Furthermore, I do believe that you will get a nomination for bureaucrat sooner or later, but now is definitely not the time to request the bureaucrat flag. I also don't see a need for another bureaucrat at this time. Cheers, Razor flame 00:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but too early.....you have been an admin for just a few months and I don't think you are ready yet..--Comet styles 02:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry Syn, but I think you could use some more expiriance. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (extremely) - You've done great as an Admin, and will do great as a 'Crat.It's just too soon.-- CM 16 ^M_LB 01:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I don't think we need another 'crat now. Chenzw Talk 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose.~~ There is a reason, but I can't type it without it sounding cold. MC8 (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't bother me Microchip, so just go on and say what you think. :) Synergy 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of "the few/only people/person I think would be most suitable for 'cratship ran and failed, why should you fare any better?" reason. I think there are probably people who deserve the flag more than you, if you vaguely see what I mean. MC8 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. And if you'd like me to answer that, I'd be more than happy to. (you would just need to tell me, or us, who you think is better qualified) Synergy 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These people. Now, where's Creol's RfB? MC8 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't start doing seperate pages for rfa/b until august. So you would have to go through the page history of the main rfa page to see his. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might go and migrate it across, then. Makes more sense to keep them together. MC8 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editors linked to have either passed or failed an RfB. So I'll answer both questions. I don't think I am more qualified from someone who has passed an RfB, but I do believe I have the same knowledge they do, to perform the tasks. For the two listed who have failed an RfB (Majorly and Gwib); Majorly (who is a crat on another WMF wiki) failed primarily due to not editing articles enough, and Gwib because of a mistake in judgment when closing an RfD (or how some said "shown a lack of good judgment). As far as I know, I have yet to close an RfD in the wrong manner, or display bad judgment in the process, and I also do an enormous amount of work on articles. This is not to say that I am somehow better than either of these admins. Majorly likes to participate in area he enjoys, and the same goes for Gwib. Both are needed, regardless of how they choose to contribute their time to this project (we're all volunteers of course). Synergy 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...well, that's shattered my one oppose. In that case, I'd better go support. MC8 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry Synergy, but you've just become an admin. I have to agree with Razorflame. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Simply too early for bureaucratship. Fine administrator, but I still think you need more experience as an admin. Come back next time. — RyanCross (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

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.