Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot 2


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

SynergeticMaggot
Failed (19/13/3); withdrawn by SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

- I've decided, despite mentioning on WT:RFA that I did not wish to seek adminship, that I would give this a second try. I think, as an editor, I've matured since my last time here, and wish to seek the communities approval for adminship. I'm here for the full 7 days.

About 20 days after my last RfA, I went on wikibreak because I moved out of state. There was a brief period where I still contributed, but I didn't have a steady internet connection until just recently.

Upon returning, I took up closing XfD's again (my not so complete list seen here), as well as RfA's (list here). I began to be more vocal on AN and ANI, helping where I can, and revisiting the Help Desk too. I also still welcome new users, report some to UAA, and requested account creator to further help along those lines.

I believe I understand policy pretty well. For instance, as far a I can tell, all of my requests for speedy delete have been deleted since my return, with the exception of 3 on March 17th of this year (I must have been drinking, woot), one on March 16th (which I figured for a COI given the name of the creator vs the name of the article) which I jumped the gun on, and one in particular I'd like to point out. 坂本 is a redirect to Sakamoto. Originally, I could not see this at all. To me, it appeared to be two square characters of unknown origin. After searching for what seemed like 2 hours in manual of styles, I tracked down an admin who appeared to know more than I (Nihonjoe), so I gave him a ping, and he helped me a bit. It wasn't until someone told me that this is only because my computer was outdated, and that it wouldn't display the japanese characters, that I felt stupid. I now have a better computer. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 

SynergeticMaggot (let's call him Syn, ok?) is an incredibly established editor here of the English Wikipedia. In his two years here, he has clocked up over 10,000 undeleted edits, many of them before his first RfA a year and a half ago. Since he obtained a steady internet connection, Syn has focused on speedy closing, per snow, AfDs and RfAs. Although the latter is not a recommended quality for an administrator, it does portray a commitment to making the project better and to avoid unnecessary debate and possible humiliation and stress for all editors.

Although Syn hasn't written any good articles, he has heavily contributed to three B-class articles: 70 edits to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 55 to Aleister Crowley and 34 to Ordo Templi Orientis. He has also recently helped out with stub sorting, something that, while necessary for the encyclopedia, is done by few editors.

With the administrator tools, I'm sure Syn would be closing more AfDs as he has done before, but this time he will be able to close the debates as deletes. I'm sure he will continue to be civil and will not abuse the tools.  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  13:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: WP:UAA and new user patrolling, WP:AIV, WP:XfD but more specifically WP:AfD, WP:CSD, and possibly WP:3RR from time to time and recent changes.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'd have to say that I'm not the greatest writer in the world. To alleviate this, I strive to provide reasons for the existence of the articles I've contributed to. I do this by locating articles, whether patrolling through new pages, or by other means such as afd's, and adding verifiable sources and references, so that others can have a basis for which to build on. I recently did this on WBOSITG's RfA. Where Billie Lee Turner was the subject of an optional question, tagged for speedy deletion. I did some checking and recreated the article, sourcing it properly and reporting back to the RfA. But for an example of a real-time speedy tagging from patrolling new pages, Wirt H. Wills should suffice. I contested the speedy deletion, and began working on it. It was then listed at AfD. Once it was closed, I began working on it more, but only a litte (remember, i'm not a great writer, but every little bit counts) since then.


 * 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: No conflicts for editing, 3RR warnings, or content disputes (since last RfA). An admin, recently had caused me a little stress, for removing my rollback after I had made what would appear to be an improper statement on Enigma's talk page. I went to Keeper to get an outside point of view, for discussion, but requested he not step in. Once the comment was clarified, my rollback was returned. I was more concerned with my user rights/priv's reflecting negatively upon me, as I take pride in having clean logs (no blocks and such). Once the matter was settled, I immediately apologized for being heated. In the future I think I will not get so heated over such things, as I don't with content disputes.

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod
 * 4. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?
 * A: I've learned that taking things slow, and communication are the key factors of contributing here at wikipedia. Without these, we have no means of getting anything done. We should never rush to judgment, always assume good faith, and respect one another's opinion.


 * 5. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Jirgrfdsfg976456 requested that you:
 * 5a. Need to block a certain user?
 * A: I'd request further information if I couldn't locate it myself from either the user requesting, or the user to be blocked's history. I would then make sure that the user has not violated policy. If he or she has violated policy, then they would be blocked accordingly to their actions and notified. If they have a history of being blocked, I believe common practice is the block length goes up. Also, to take this one step further, I understand there are no cool down blocks. Blocking is primarily prevention from further disruption. If the situation did not fall under anything currently listed on wikipedia, I would definitely ask a more experienced admin for his or her opinion.


 * 5b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?
 * A: If you mean a featured article, then I'd have to say I'd be shocked to know that it wasn't already protected, and would be more than happy to do so, with the appropriate expiration. But if it was just a picture or a something else currently on the Main Page then I'd do the same as I'd do if it was a block request, only make sure I used this policy instead.

optional question from User:Dlohcierekim
 * 6. Do you feel joke RfA questions bring some needed levity to a sometimes daunting, stressful process, as well as promoting the collegiality of the project, or that such humor is best checked somewhere, anywhere else?
 * A. Only if the situation has in fact become stressful (In this case, I have no opinion. Although I will say that this process brings me absolutely no stress). We need humor every now and then to balance out the seriousness from time to time. This is not to say that we should go blocking, unblocking, deleting, protecting, or moving pages (whether protected or not) for humors sake. We should all remember that we are working toward building an encyclopedia. And one editors joke, is another's insult. Be mindful of your fellow editors is what I prefer to say.

Questions from The Transhumanist 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC):


 * Q1: Why do you believe you will make a good admin?
 * A: I'm not sure how to answer that. I believe I will make a good admin because I value my contributions to the pedia, and wish to continue helping in other ways that I have not. To give a specific example: I recently filed an WP:RfCU seen here. I did a bit of detective work and a lot of thinking, and followed it up by asking other admins from IRC to give me basic feedback before going through with it, as it was my first time. I hope this serves as an example of how I would further proceed, given the new buttons.
 * Q2: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
 * A: I don't believe I have conflicting philosophies when it comes to wikipedia. My most basic are a balance between Deletionism and Inclusionism. To clarify, I believe an article, a redirect, or any other page should be deleted if it meets our deletion policy, but should be included if it has value and meets our guidelines and relevant policies (V, OR, and N). So to be brief, I see not conflict. These merely complement each other.
 * Q3: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
 * A: That could be a number of things. I'll stick with vandalism and reform as topics. For reform, I would contribute to the relevant talk page. I have done this in the past on talk pages such as WT:AN and WT:RFA, keeping in mind that CCC is never far off. For vandalism, I will do what I always do. Revert it as quickly as possible, making sure it is in fact vandalism.
 * Q3a: What would you reform?
 * A: ''I only meant that I would openly participate in current discussion under the topic. My aim is not to look for something to reform, but to help in the process of one when it presents itself. A common mistake is to look for a solution to a problem that yet exists. My intentions are to remain vocal, and seek out where my voice needs to be when and if there is a reform. Examples would be the decision to change the default of BLP's at AfD to be delete upon a no consensus, the recent rise in idea's to reform RfA, and currently I am looking forward to the new RfC for Myanmar. I currently do not see anything that I would initiate reform to.
 * Q4: Let's say you are an admin, and a user starts treating you specifically in a very incivil manner, regularly. What would you do about it?
 * A: ''I would quickly re examine why this is happening. If I cannot correct it, I will seek a third opinion, by requesting that another admin look over the situation. If this is not possible, and things have gotten that out of hand where it is not easily corrective, then I would follow the next step in the dispute resolution process. If the incivility is actually inappropriate, I will expect that the user in question would be blocked by another admin who happens to be watching the discussion. Over all, I believe caution is needed in situations that you yourself are in. Sometimes, just ignoring unhelpful comments are more appropriate than turning the situation into something it shouldn't be.

Optional question by Zginder
 * 7. What do you consider the most important English Wikipedia Policy?
 * A. All of them. I believe they all complement each other and one should not be held above any other, so I cannot favor one over the other. These are of course, descriptive and not prescriptive.

At this stage, I wouldn't do anything other than bring it to the attention of other admins through the venue of AN/I or an admin who is currently logged on (also IRC wikipedia-admins). I am not qualified to deal with this yet. I would simply make others aware, and watch how things unfold. By sitting back and observing, we learn a lot. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Guest9999
 * 9. Were you aware of this guideline when you answered question 5b? If not would you like to amend your answer? Guest9999 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A: No, I wasn't aware of that guideline before I answered, but thank you for showing me. My main understanding came from reviewing the logs. I had noticed that the FA's were protected with an expiration time (presumably for the duration of it being linked), and logically assumed this was the norm. If it was done by a request from WP:RPP, then I feel they should have said that in the edit summary. I won't change my answer, but only because I want it to reflect what I thought, at that particular time. I will use your question for my correction. If the article that is linked from the main page has received fresh vandalism (new traffic), then yes, I would protect it. It was my mistake to assume that the question only meant for FA's. And I also should have said semi-protect (I was using the word protect and not specifying what type).


 * 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:
 * 10a. ...an editor to be blocked?
 * A: For repeadidly making personal attacks, gross incivility, persistent vandalism, edit or revert warring and copy vio's.
 * 10b. ...a page to be protected?
 * A: When it has been established that there has been edit warring to the page, with no signs of it stopping. Here, consensus should be sought out on the talk page.


 * 10c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
 * A: For blatant copy vio's, pure vandalism, contributions from banned users, adverts, author requests, and non controversial like housekeeping.


 * 10d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
 * A: Only when it is clear that a specific rule is in contravention to further building this encyclopedia.


 * 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: One determines consensus by first testing his edit. If the edit is reverted, conversation begins. At the end of the conversation, if its agreed upon by both parties, or all of the parties involved, that the edit was indeed the correct one, then the edit remains. If not, it could escalate into edit warring, and dispute resolution begins. For XfD's: consensus is determined by who has made the best argument for deleting, or keeping (also merging, redirecting, etc.) an article. Closing an XfD is about making the right decision, not the most popular one. And last, for DRV: consensus is determined once again, by who has made the better argument. This might include but is not limited to: relisting at the appropriate XfD or upon the finding of new evidence of notability, we overturn, and endorsing the deletion, recognizing the closing admins sound judgment.


 * 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: I'd review the talk pages, review the edits, and help mediate the situation (I used to mediate with the mediation cabal). I wouldn't formulate an opinion, but request that both parties discuss the edit before making another revert. If they did not feel comfortable with me mediating, then I would suggest they follow the steps in the dispute resolution process.

General comments

 * See SynergeticMaggot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for SynergeticMaggot:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SynergeticMaggot before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Ok this is getting to be a little more than just a difference of opinion here. My answers to question 5a and 5b are inline with policy. I've stated I'd first investigate the matter (either to block or protect at request) showing caution, and then if a user had violated policy or a page that had fresh vandalism on it, I'd block the user based on policy, and semi-protect a page if there was vandalilsm. Can someone please explain to me, how this is a bad answer? Please fully explain, so I know why my statment is wrong. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. I've seen this user around.  Concerns at last RFA were over experience, but this has been cleared up.  Malinaccier (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Al Tally  talk  23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - dedicated, knows his stuff, and has gained tons of experience since his last RfA.  krimpet ✽  23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) okay Dloh  cierekim'''  23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems like a trusted user. I've seen this user contributing in many places. Regards, RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  wikify ) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I thought you were an admin already. (Guess I was too lazy to look ;) ) Seriously, a great editor. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  00:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) · AndonicO  Engage. 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per Articles for deletion/Patrick Zurek. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - -- Cometstyles 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. a voice of reason in a field of non-civil, overzealous-with-deletions admins would be a great thing to have to even out the field. Celarnor Talk to me  02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support A very good and helpful wikipedian.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per my good experience with this user (and my barnstar!). Best of luck! --Cameron (T|C) 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Anything this guy is not solid on yet, he is clearly willing to learn. I saw an oppose for him only having over 2,000 edits since his return. Outside of Wikipedia, when was the last time you did something 2,000 times and got called out for lack of experience? Never mind if you did the same thing 10,000 times before you did it 2,000. He'll do just fine, and is clearly able to grow in the role. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Agreed. Willing to learn, maybe not perfect yet but close enough. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Only 1 Imagespace edit. Still the user has a lot of experience in other areas of editing. Ilyushka88 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support as (belated) nom.  ^^  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support although the opposing arguments are valid, I like the way the nominee is showing a good attitude and enthusiasm.  Vishnava (talk)  22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Some of the answers are indeed questionable. However, I feel SynergeticMaggot's strong points outweigh his weaknesses. While Syn might not be perfect, I highly doubt he'll abuse the tools. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Answer to question 5a is appallingly unthoughtful, crudely explained and partially seems at least to contradict itself. I could overlook that as lazy writing (which I do myself often enough), but I cannot overlook a potential admin with such low experience in article-building and content-conflict proposing to patrol AN/3.  Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but I'm going to take a cue from Kmweber on this one. You seem to view policy as the end all of everything (the attitude of, I'd say, most Wikipedians) however, it should IMO be descriptive of a long term consensus but of which can be changed. And, they should be a suggestion to follow and not the end all of everything in the spirit of WP:IAR. We do have several processes of which to discuss actions of a particular user. Also, I'd like to see a bit more article contributing, as that's what we're all about. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, while I understand the candidate was apparently on a lengthy break, they've only had 2181 edits in the last year.The candidate appears to be well involved in policy areas and the areas of interest. However, they seem to be doing little actual editing and the lack of an extensive editing history after nearly a two year break leaves me concerned that they are not well versed/experienced with current policies and guidelines as I would like to see in an admin. This seems to be reflected in recent discussions regarding SM's non-admin closures of AfDs at the admin noticeboard, Wikiquette alerts, and a recent AN/I. I'd like to see a full year of steady, active contributions, and less "mistakes" being made in non-admin closures and other areas. As a side note, I do find it interesting that the candidate says they have been in no conflicts, when we were in a conflict not that long ago (hence my user page being in the list of their top user talk edits) and there the above links show clear disagreement with other editors over the candidate's use of SpeedyKeep in non-admin closures. Some of the candidate's in these disagreements have been less than ideal, particularly her assertion that consensus to speedy close can be reached within minutes of a good-faith AfD being listed.--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to your opinion, this is not what I said. I said I have not gotten into any content disputes, pertaining to articles. Best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The question asks about editing conflicts, however, and there have been several. I'm curious as to why you did not mention them in your answer. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think I should add to my answer, everyone who has ever questioned my closing of AfD's? If so, then I would be happy to. Although I have already provided a link to those discussions in my nomination speech, just not the talk pages. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say all, but I think highlights might be good, maybe a general note of why they happened and steps taken to avoid in the future? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then consider the request accepted. I must have misunderstood it in the first place. I was assuming the question had to do with disputes over the contents of articles, and not describing every edit that someone has happened to disagree with. Let me check over all of my edits from the history (since I have come back), and cross ref with talk to provide the highlights. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I've spent a lot of time reviewing Syn, then reloaded the page. I have to say, the answers to the questions haven't been good. Specifically 5a and 5b, most of Transhuman's question, now also Q 7 (these numbers might change if transhumans questions have numbers added). Then I caught issues with XfDs. Let's be fair here... the ANI and the RfC aren't horrible, but they aren't that great either. I've read through both of them and think that Syn should have taken the advice in them, but just seemed overly defensive. Furthermore, I'm really quite surprised he didn't address these issues in Q3. He doesn't have to, yes, but I don't think there is any way around it but to say that his Q3 response is at the worst deceptive, at the best, poorly considered. If there was an ANI and a RFC about a candidate, the community is going to want to see it. Bottom line, Syn isn't a horrible candidate, but all of these concerns add up to some serious worrying from me, and I have to oppose at this time. Also, just noticed his interaction with Collectonian... only third oppose in and this is coming off as overly defensive to a fair oppose.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This user is far too quick on the SNOW closes; despite several people telling him that, besides cases of blatant spam and vandalism, there is no harm in letting an AfD go the full five days, he continues to close AfDs and get in trouble for it. This causes me to question his judgment, his collaborative skills, and potential damage if granted the tools. Also, per Collectonian. GlassCobra 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some links supporting this?Balloonman (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the AN and ANI links posted by Collectonian. Several people told SM to refrain from SNOW closes, yet he ignored them. GlassCobra 21:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Ugh. I'm just not comfortable with SM working at AfD or any other consensus driven discussion given the links provided above for ANI and AN. I was present for one of them, and opined a defense comment, as the candidate was working with WP:IAR in mind. However, upon reflection, I see that these discussions reveal an critical mis-evaluation of that policy. Some of his non-admin closures have been downright incorrect. I feel that there is insufficient assurance that this will not transmit over to the buttons.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; Self-nom, advocate of speedy deletion, incorrectly believes so-called "policies" and "guidelines" to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if Syn answered a question to cleverly trick you, but you might want to read the RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No trick intended. I actually believe that all policies are only descriptive. Its up to the editors to apply them properly. They guide us in editing and are created through long standing, common practice and are subject to change. I merely use them as they currently are, not as they might be one year from now. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I doubted it was a trick. I wouldn't normally respond to a Kurt (or most opposes in general) but when his response shows that he in fact ignored the answers in your RfA for a predetermined presumption, I thought I'd point it out to him.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thank you, I appreciate that. This is after all, a discussion and not a debate. And thats why I responded to you and not Kurt, although I won't discount his concerns. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can say whatever you want; the rest of your answers belie your true thoughts. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose _ I'm really unhappy with the answers to questions 5a and b. Really sorry, but I'm concerned about your depth of knowledge regarding policy - A l is o n  ❤ 07:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Alison. I was wondering if you might be able to do for me, what others have not done. Can you explain to me, exactly what was wrong with the answers, so I have a better understanding? I can't correct it, if I don't know what it is. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really briefly here, as I'm going off-line for the night. Re. 5b, you might want to look at the dreadfully-acronym'd WP:MPFAP for a different perspective on protecting main page featured articles, and the rationale behind it. Remember that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and when you apply article protection, even semi, you deprive a large section of our community from being able to edit that article. The main page is one of the most watched and most-experimented-with articles on the wiki and curious anons often get their "start" in editing it (yes, even in a vandalistic way!) Just one or two points - A l is o n  ❤ 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Other point (really quick) is that your answer to 5a gives a strong impression that you would block an editor on request of anyone, and I'm suspicious of redlinked, throwaway accounts, providing the "target" editor had transgressed somehow. Transgressions do not necessarily lead to immediate blocks and blocking is more of a last measure, really. If possible, dialog and warn first. If they're a blatant vandal-on-the-rampage, well ... -  A l is o n  ❤ 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well thank you. I had no idea I was coming off as sounding like I'd just blatantly block editors like that (not my intention). As for the rest, I've made use of optional question 9 for discussion on protecting the main article. But I do appreciate you clarifying. Best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. SM is a generally friendly and helpful user (once kindly correcting me when I was making an error with AfD closes soon after becoming an admin) who makes good contributions. But after reviewing this there are too many concerns. Like Alison, I was rather bothered by both of the answers to question 5, particularly 5a (there's just no getting around the fact that that is a bad answer). Indeed I'm rather underwhelmed by the answers overall. Likewise the initial response to Collectonian's oppose comment is rather snippy which I really don't like to see in RfA's. Probably most importantl though are some obvious problems with AfD closes. I'm all for non-admins closing obvious keep AfD's, but there seem to be some real problems with how SM approaches this (despite a lot of good work). The threads linked by Collectonian are worrisome. Specifically (and I did not look in great detail, these are just a couple of quick examples) this close is just not acceptable. Not that keeping was necessarily the wrong decision, but with 3 delete !votes and 2 keeps this is not an AfD for a non-admin to close (this was a month and a half ago). Similarly, but less obviously, this was not a speedy keep. Despite article improvement, there was still a perfectly viable delete comment present and discussion had only proceeded for about 24 hours. The fact that it was almost certainly going to end up a keep is not the point, we generally keep AfD's open for the full five days if there is any doubt as to the outcome, bearing in mind that new information might come in. I can offer strong moral support, and in 6 or 9 months without problems would probably support, but I have too many concerns about judgment at this point. Sorry.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would not be comfortable with this editor closing moar AFDs. Glasscobra sums it up well. Neıl  龱  11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Way too quick and erratic on the AFD closures for my comfort. <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 16:36, May 21, 2008
 * 4) Oppose While I disagree with two of kurt's reasons, his point about SynergeticMaggot2 believing policies to be prescriptive is definitly a good reason to oppose.-- Phoenix -  wiki  19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I hate to sound like someone who has no original thought of their own by repeating something that's been said several times already but I really, really am not comfortable with your answers to 5a and 5b. Mind you, I have not ever supported or opposed an admin candidate based on just one answer (even if my oppose/support vote condemns/praises said answer) rather I am left with a feeling that you might swipe your mop incorrectly (?) if you were put on the spot to make a decision to either block someone when blocking them might only make matters worse or protecting an article and thereby halting progress on its improvement. P.S. please forgive my mop joke if it's much more asinine than I intended for it to be. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Pending answer to question 8. Neutral - maybe I understood wrong, but it seems a bit like there is no difference between the current "activities" done by this user, and the admin "activities," so I don't think it matters, as it has already been established that it's no big deal.  Basketball110  My story/Tell me yours 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Nice enough user but answers to my questions were not satisfactory, really. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral After reading the answers to questions above, and without spending a good deal more time reviewing this candidate's contribs, I would like to post here to voice a concern, which can best be illustrated by searching for the word "quickly". There is no deadline - no need to revert vandalism "as quickly as possible", and certainly no need to respond quickly to a user who's being incivil to you. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're neutralling because the user likes to do things quickly? Of course vandalism shouild be reverted, instantly if possible, there definitly is a deadline as far as vandalism is concerned, that is, before someone sees it, though that deadline is often passed. The no deadline essay was only about writing articles, and that was to prevent people going beserk when they have to take break and can't finish their half done article. If we can get things done extra fast, that's great,t eh quicker the better.-- Phoenix  -  wiki  19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello SheffieldSteel. I'd like to mention to you that what I actually said was "I'd quickly reexamine why this is happening". Meaning, I'd take a step back and see if any edit I made personally offended the user, before rushing to judgment. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (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.