Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some questions

  • Why is every one of your last 1500 edits (one week) marked as minor, including comments on Talk and User talk pages? —Centrx→talk • 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of adding another "delete per nom" (like [1] [2]) when it has no effect on the outcome of the AfD? —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Um. I made 1500 edits on one week? Wow. But to give my answer, because I consider them minor? Are talk pages and user talk pages supposed to be set for major article edits? If so I will be more than happy to change it. Also, the non talk edits are mostly backlog working. I do alot of backlog work, also noted in the oppose section on the RfA main page. Does this clear it up?
And to answer your question about AfD's...I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that my decision to delete an article per the nomination/nominator has no baring on the decision to delete it? If so I'd have to say you were misinformed. At articles for deletion we try to reach a consensus as to whether an article gets kept, or deleted (not to be confused with a vote mind you). If I reach an article up for deletion, and numerous editors have already expressed my same opinion, I will either say per above, or per nom (if the nom makes more sense to me). I hope this clears it up for you, and I am hoping you will get the chance to either support, or oppose my nomination. Thanks. :D SynergeticMaggot 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to standard practice and Help:Minor edit (which has examples, reasons, and results), minor edits are, in general, for trivial changes like spelling and grammar. So, creating a Talk comment, or adding, changing, or removing any substantial text from an article would not be minor.
If an AfD is already going to be deleted because it has a half-dozen or more "Delete"s, then there is no reason to add another delete vote without reasoning. The article is already going to be deleted unless someone provides other reasoning. At its most effective, it makes AfD more like a vote; barring that, it has no effect on the outcome and does not aid the process. —Centrx→talk • 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this seems like an awfully tangential reason to oppose someone's nomination. There are all kinds of reasons to weigh in on an AfD discussion, even one that seems to have already reached a clear consensus. For example, many articles are later re-created, and may find themselves at AfD again. Editors reviewing the nomination may very well find a previous deletion by 10 delete comments to be much more decisive than a deletion by 5 comments, and then comment accordingly. In other words, I don't think there can ever be such thing as "too much consensus". --Aguerriero (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't oppose, I have not yet rendered any conclusive opinion. I was asking a question. Regarding AfDs, a reason it can be relevant to RfA is that anyone can pile up a hundred "delete per noms" in their edit history, but it does not demonstrate understanding of the deletion process. —Centrx→talk • 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
There werent "a hundred" deletes per nom. If you were so inclined to go digging you should find better examples. I will go over every edit I have made to Wikipedia if any requesting editor addresses it here on the talk page. Also, if you wish to see anything pertaining to my knowledge of AfD, you should go over all 15-20 AfD closes I have made, as well as the possible 100 or so AfD's I have participated, as I do not keep count. Also there are examples I gave in the header below thisSynergeticMaggot 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have looked through all of the ones since the 20th, and a random clicking of a good eighth of the ones before that. The great majority of them are "I agree with all the deletes above". Some of them point to WP:WEB or something specifically, but it doesn't add anything; certainly some of them are at the beginning of the AfD, when there are yet few comments, and there are ones with reasoning, but most all of them add nothing new. Anyway, the question is, do six initial unexplained "deletes" outweigh 3 subsequent "keeps" with good reasoning? —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes and Help:Minor edit also says its a matter of personal judgement. So I think I can safely say that I know how to excercise this.
On AfD, there is a notion that if no one else slaps a delete or keep on after 4 to 5 editors already have, then it might be relisted. If others feel like supporting nom, then whats the big deal? A large amount of editors who feel it should be deleted, will cause it to be. Note the example you have given here, that it was in fact effective, since the article is now deleted with a strong consensus. Also, your next example is deleted too. Here is the outcome of the next example. As you can see, with there being a few keep votes, it can be taken as its a controversial nomination. But when experienced participants show up, they can add a delete comment and it still makes a difference (as it did, like I said, the article is now deleted). The only time it might not make a difference to say "delete per nom" is when everyone else is saying "keep" (then you would actually have to have your own reason). Any more questions? SynergeticMaggot 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But surely minor edits only apply to small changes, sticking notices on talk pages (for example) surely is a pretty major edit! I don't think it is just relating to article edits..
Also I think that saying look I voted delete per nom and it worked doesn't count at all, in such a case unless it is your vote that sways it then there is no need to join the deletion just for the hell of it. In the case of unanimous votes there is normally a good reason for this and the closing admin should review the nomination and article / article talk to check everything 's by the by --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And the majority of the edits in question I believe are minor. I dont think talk page edits should be included in major article edits (I save those for actual edits to articles). Clearly its just a diference of opinion :/
Also, I support delete in any nom I choose to support. This is also just a personal difference. Supporting a keep or delete on AfD builds consensus, and this is a foundation of which Wikipedia is based on. I can respect your reasons, but they are not my own. SynergeticMaggot 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Point taken :D each to their own --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing something up

(conversation copied, with permission, from the talk pages of Gwernol and SynergeticMaggot) Gwernol 12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mentioned a few things that struck me as a misunderstanding. First, you refered to changing my signature as my acknowledgment that something was "wrong". There is nothing wrong about it. I've been asked several times now, and the last time I was asked, I changed it (note: the last time I was asked was on a talk page). At the time I made that comment, I did not wish to be an admin. But two months is enough time to think about it. Also note that I didnt nominate myself, so I have no reason for it to be in my self interest, my old signature was far from being confusing and I have a disclaimer on my user page. And that wasnt in June, it was in May.
Second, about the WP:BIO scenario, there wasnt a clear definition on a guideline or policy to say why the article I created wa not aloud. But note that I did not recreate the article once, its still in my sandbox awaiting notability. Also theres not policy that says I doin fact have to "submit to" a guideline. The guideline states that not all have to follow it. But since then I have seen reason to follow such guidelines, and use them in many instances in my edit summary, as well as for discussion on AfD.
And lastly, you referred to a more recent event where a friend in real life posted personal information about me on WP:AN, and I responded on my talk page to him about it, noting that I have never done the same to him. Which was cleared up and he apologized for.
There are no hardships for bringing this up on my RfA. I only wish to clear this up with you, so there is no misunderstanding. Have a nice night (or day, depending on your time zone) :)
SynergeticMaggot 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced by the answers you give. My point about the change of signature was that you'd had several reasonable requests to change it since it clearly was confusing people. You replied: "Well once I decide I'm ready for such a task as adminship or mediation cabal or anything of the like, I'll change it". If there's nothing wrong with it why would you change it? The only reason I could see would be because J.S. had just told you it can count against you on an RfA. In other words you'd change it to avoid critisism on an RfA but not because it was confusing other editors in your regular editing. You're correct about it being in May though - sorry for getting that wrong.
Personally I find WP:BIO to be very clear. It has specific criteria that can be easily applied to any article. The issue is that you were suggesting you could ignore all the guidelines if you want, since they are not policy. While its true that guidelines are intended to carry less weight than policies they are still important parts of what define Wikipedia. As an admin you would be expected to stay within the guidelines and use the tools to enforce the guidelines as appropriate. I remain concerned that you do not understand this or are not willing to follow it. This does not give me confidence that you will use the tools well.
The final episode is the most worrying. I agree that it is not okay for anyone to post personal information about other editors. In fact this is a pretty serious issue. Even if another editor released information about you, that does not give you the right to do the same back to them.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this further, but I'm afraid I cannot change my opinion on the AfD yet. Sorry, Gwernol 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I changed my signature because I was taking that helpful advice, over other editors who preferred me to leave it as Zos, which I still like alot actually. And again, I didnt change it because of RfA, as I wasnt even going to go so far as to self nom myself for another 3 months. I simply changed it due to confusion on talk pages, where other editors who were meeting me for the first time were getting confused as to which one was my user name and which was my signature. To avoid this confusion, I finally changed it. And yet there is still nothing wrong with the signature, so I'm wondering why this is even an issue frankly. And I accept the apology, not needed and no harm done, I for one know that people can make a few honest mistakes :p
Back when I created the bio article in question, I did not find it clear as to why my article was being deleted. After careful review of it, and the deletion process, I soon realized I was wrong. And if you still are not sure that I have an understanding of WP:BIO, you can check a few AfD's in which I supported deletion of bio's. Heres one, a more recent and this one is not much, but its me agreeing that WP:BIO applys, yet on this one I actually say that the bio fails it. But the best I can do from history is to show how I personally agrued for the deletion of an article that failed wp:bio here, where I initiated a major argument against it, and others agreed with me. If thats not enough to make you see that since my foolish attempt to get an article I created god knows how long ago (seems like ages) I've changed, then nothing will :)
On a last note, I never expected that you would change a "vote" (its not really a vote, its either support or oppose). And I did not contact you on your talk page for that purpose. I just believe that if you don't understand something in my history, that it should be addressed and discussed with me first, before you oppose me :) No ones perfect. Best regards and thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. SynergeticMaggot 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
With your permission, and per my suggestion on the RfA, I'd like to copy this conversation to the RfA's talk page as I believe it would be useeful for other editors to see it there. Best, Gwernol 11:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Permission granted, although I'd like to say, I dont wish this to sway anyones decision. I believe in fairness and balance only (NPOV is more like it). I don't mind that others oppose my RfA, I just dont want any confusion as to why they oppose. They are more experienced than I (I hope :p ), for determining who gets the mop. :) SynergeticMaggot 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: My comment

ok I had forgotten the discussion we had and in fairness I was MIA for personal reasons so was not totally up to date on the case. Also I mmissed the talk page dicussion about the merge bt I don't know how you got everyone to agree. FFL was very opposed to the idea (I think). Regardless I still think you could have let me know in more detail or notified me when you saw I was MIA - no real dig at your conduct everyone does it and it niggles me!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I got everyone to agree by working out the issues one by one. Also, FFL (User:Frater FiatLux) has a user RfC on him. When he came back from break, we set aside all differences to work on the article. You can check the archives on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn if you wish to see the results. But thank you for your concerns about it, I admire your thoroughness as a mediator. Best wishes. SynergeticMaggot 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok all points taken and I have checked up on the discussions etc. I have top say there was so much going on on that talk page I completely lost track. It got sorted out though which I suppose is what matters. In truth I got fed up with the whole thing - just reading it through every time for a small point I needed nearly tipped me over the edge..... Still staying neutral but I wish you best of luck and hope your RFA succeeds. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem and understood. The Golden Dawn dispute was a heavy and long conversation. I'm just glad I was able to settle it. SynergeticMaggot 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have retracted all of my comments, they were a bit unfair. Although in truth I got very lost in that Mediation case (and a bit angry hence the backing off) I'm glad it was all sorted out in the end.
I have been considering your RFA for a few days and have come to the conclusion that though you will not misuse the admin tools I cannot vote support because of a general level of minor mishaps that you made - simply due to lack of experience I guess. I refuse to oppose either on the principle there is no major reson for it. As such I am retracting my vote entirely.. what a mess!!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My checkuser

Can someone please point me to the right venue to dispute my checkuser? As I am a bit confused right now as why I am being suspected, and this is my first time (? not sure, I didn even know about this one!). Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can do this here, or on my talk page. SynergeticMaggot 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Mackensen was rather cryptic in his original report, I have asked him to clarify it. He said he would look into it again. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • edit conflict-that user is on wiki-break
Ok, from what I see, this was an archived checkuser. No one has informed me of anything, and I deny this ridiculousness. I'm asking that it be removed from my RfA, there is enough against me already. I have asked 999 on his talk page if he'd send in his ip, or whatever is needed to clear me of this matter, as I will send in everything short of fluids (this is not meant to be taken as perversion, I mean samples of any kind. this is a serious matter). SynergeticMaggot 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen says you and 999 are unrelated to the other findings. [3] I removed the vote and your followup comment, on the grounds that leaving it in but struck out might be prejudicial even in light of the clarification. I will also post a clarification on the RFCU page. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I requested the checkuser. Yes I am on Wikibreak but just learned this had become an issue. A particular AfD was flooded with meat and or sock puppets at the last minute. I requested a check user on SynergeticMaggot and the other experienced edits that were voting the same way the sockpuppets were voting. As I put in my request, probably all the other editors were innocent and one was guilty. SynergeticMaggot's name was on the ticket becuase someone's did. SynergeticMaggot was totally cleared. This should not be an issue in his RfA. There was some sock puppetry but nothing involving him.--A. B. 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I humbly thank you for taking time off of your wikibreak to come here. If there is anything within my powers that I can do, just ask. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This was partly my fault, since I should have asked for clarification before posting to the RFA. Sorry for the scare I put you through. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FloNight

No need to apologize. Yet, I never refered to the minor vs. major edit conversation as correct per policy, but I did say If so I will be more than happy to change it. HELP:Minor edit is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. And I nom-spammed? I asked current project participants to wiegh in on the proposal, seeing as how it was for a Barnstar for the WikiProject Stub sorting team. Also, there might have been a few edits I have done that might have been major edits, yet as I have said, I can change this per policy, because I always go with policy. And no one has refered this to me, nor a guideline, just Help:Minor edit, which says its a matter of opinion. SynergeticMaggot 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothetical questions

  • A user is blocked because "3RR" and requests to be unblocked because he did not ever revert more than 3 times in 24 hours; but he was making formatting changes across several articles, reverting them many times despite many users disagreeing with his changes. The admin who blocked him is gone for the week. What do you do? —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another admin has closed an RfD 3 days early (with result Delete) after an overwhelming majority agreed to the deletion, and you yourself agree that the redirect should be deleted because it could lead to confusion, but it does not qualify for speedy deletion at all. What do you do? —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You concieve what seems to you to be a reasonable but substantial addition to a guideline that reflects common practice on Wikipedia and would clarify matters for new users. You propose it on the relevant Talk page(s), the village pump, and on RFC, but after a couple of weeks no one seems to care about it and no one has responded. What do you do? —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way you can repost this to the main page under optional questions? I'd be more than happy to address these there. SynergeticMaggot 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to have to answer these questions here. I'd still prefer that these questions be asked as optional on the main page for anyone to see. I'm not sure how familiar you are with RfA's Centrx, but not many people are going to be looking at this page. And since I have no other optional questions, I might as well answer yours. SynergeticMaggot 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question one.
    • Answer.
I'd check to see if there was in fact 4 or more reverts (user contributions), as sometimes these things happen while making adjustments to articles. I'd also recomend that the user wait it out if its a small block like 3hr or 24hr. This gives the user time to cool down before filing a report (and often time if the user is in fact at fault, they will be returning with a clear head and would realise their mistake). If its a longer block, then I would look into AN, ANI, and 3RR reports and archives. This would help to see any information needed in making a decision. For instance, maybe another admin responded as well, or there was a double report since you specify many users'. Over all, there would have to be a reason why someone was blocked, and if a more experienced admin thinks there was reason, I dont think I'd challenge it, unless of course its a new admin, who jumped the gun or something. In that case I still wouldnt be quick to unblock, but I'd ask an admin I know, who has more experience in the matter to advise me first. Then let the admin know on his talk page if I did decide to unblock.
  • Question one.
  • Answer.
Address the matter to the closing admin. If I feel it was done wrong I would talk it over with him/her. If there is an overwhelming consensus I think it can be closed early, most things are, even RfA's.
  • Question three.
  • Answer.
First I'm not really sure I understand the question. Do you mean that I am to expand a guideline, already made? In that case I would address it on the talk page, so see what everyone thought first. Much like I did on the talk page for RfA. But if you mean to actualy submit a proposal to Wikipedia Proposals and it didnt take...

Not much I'd have to say. Sometimes things just dont work out. I may wait until there is more activity, or revise whatever my proposal is before resubmitting.

[edit] My signature

I'm a bit confused here. Some of the comments that have been made here pertaining to my signature have left me uneasy. What's the big deal? Some dont like it, others find nothing wrong with it. Can someone give me a ruling on this? Also, some have made mention of my username. Whats wrong with it? I clearly describe its meaning on my page. Should I request a name change or something? SynergeticMaggot 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_SynergeticMaggot_78fb.html"