Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Benon

Final (62/23/3) ended 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Benon (talk • contribs) – Firstly, my pervious rfas can be found here: [1] and here [2] and my Interiots tool count (which even though outdated should help to give a rough idea of my activity) is here. [3]

Before the question comes up yes, I was once a vandal, but I stopped that a long time ago and have instead turned my energies into improving Wikipedia.

My primary focus on Wikipedia is recent changes patrolling, I do some e-mail based AMA work from time to time, and work on article related stuff, mainly expanding UK law stubs.

I've also helped mediate and bring to an end (through arbitration) this dispute: arbitration

Im also willing to answer any new Wikipedians' questions throuh my talk page, e-mail or IRC, and if made an adminstrator can hopefully serve the community better.

If anyone would like to ask any other questions, please feel free to add them to this RFA, my talk page or via the e-mail me function

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accept my own nomination Benon
extra note as an admin i would also help to clear out the backlog of copyright issues, some dating back as far as early april Benon 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
extra extra note ive seen on some recent rfas pepole saying de sysoping them should be no big deal and i think its an excellent idea, therefore if 3 nuetral admins request that i resign as an admin for due cause i will do so Benon 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. --Shanel § 19:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support. Came to en last August, vandalized six pages, disappeared until October, made a few minor edits, and has been pretty strong since mid-December, even using popups since January. I'm a little worried this user may be pining for "authority": first self-nom ended 5 February; second, 29 March; and, here we are, 7 May. Also, user's answers don't necessarily suggest needing the tools. Still, the user's activity suggests a relatively rounded approach, and I have no reason to oppose. RadioKirk talk to me 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support he's come a long way -- Tawker 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. 100% agree with Tawker. — FireFox (U T C) 20:34, 07 May '06
  5. Support per Tawker. Rama's Arrow 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Open about past. Looks alright. Nephron  T|C 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per Tawker. Shows a great personal growth. --Tone 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 22:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support I would prefer better spelling and grammar in the answers to my questions, but the answers contained within them are satisfactory. JoshuaZ 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support looks good now. His illness is no reason to oppose. Get mopping, reformed vandal! Kimchi.sg 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. The poacher-turned-gamewarden meme has great appeal to me. Bucketsofg✐ 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, will make good use of the mop. Royboycrashfan 01:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Am impressed by his admission of being a former vandal. Quite useful in RC patrolling & will do well with the addiional tools. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Maybe not one of the finest pasts, but I strongly believe that Benon has moved on from those days. Give him a mop! --Jay(Reply) 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak Support per his answers on the questions, little bit low on the mainspace edits for my standards abakharev 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. The third time should be the charm.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Rory096 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support a good user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Eager support. Continued to contribute even with everything else that is going on-- brings dedication and strenth. I liked his answers in his first RfA. Most of the opposes then were for "not enough experience-- that's been remedied.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 06:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. I dont support vandals y'know ;) --Andy123(talk) 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --Terence Ong 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Wikipedia needs more users like Benon on the front line, ones able to think like a vandal... if only because they used to be one. It's time to trade the slingshot in for a deer rifle, and ask yourself the all-important questions "if I were the enemy, what would I be doing, where would I be hiding, how do I continue passing myself off as a clueless noob?" and, more critically, "can I be reformed?" and, "If I'm clearly a lost cause, what's the most effective way to keep me from coming back?" — May. 8, '06 [11:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  24. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Underestimated him in January when he was creating imposter pages. But I'll go ahead and Support his nod if it's of any consolation. --Slgrandson 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support--lightdarkness (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Glad to give you my support. You did not give up hope and this time, your nomination seems to be heading for success. You truly are my inspiration. Third time lucky! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Naturally. Computerjoe's talk 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support though more article edits will be better.--Jusjih 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, as before. Petros471 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support without a doubt, a good user OSU80 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Benon is our man on the "inside". 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, it is time. NoSeptember talk 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Reformed ?. Ok. --Bhadani 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC) --Bhadani 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Obvious Support - Anyone who doesn't know who Benon is hasn't done any significant anti-vandal work. It's only common sense that he get access to the tools. I'm tired of getting bugged to make blocks for him :-P And some of the objections below make no sense ... he has too few substantial article edits? So what? Adminship doesn't mean you're an article writer, it means you're a janitor, and Benon is a great janitor. There's nothing you can do as an admin in terms of writing articles that you can't do as a normal user, so I would turn this objection around and say that people who only focus on writing articles shouldn't be granted adminship. Now, there are lots of janitorial duties you do need adminship to perform, so it only makes sense that we hand Benon the mop. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    Somewhere between RadioKirk and Cyde support per, well, RadioKirk and Cyde. The sundry orthographic, grammatical, and syntactic errors in, for example, the answers to questions are disconcerting, inasmuch as they suggest either careless typing (from which one would infer either a lack of appreciation for the dignity of the RfA process or a general lack of interest in communicating effectively with the en.Wikipedia community, comprising, as it does, users with varied backgrounds and levels of conversance with the English language, neither of which speaks particularly well of one as a prospective admin) or unfamiliarity with the English language, which unfamiliarity would surely militate against one's becoming an admin, if only because of the likelihood of one's having difficulty communicating with other users, especially in the heated situations into which an admin must sometimes insinuate him/herself. In view of Benon's user page profession that he is a native English speaker, I'll make the former assumption and presume only that his typing is sometimes deficient (whose isn't?), even as I'd hope he'd clean it up a bit. Joe 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral
  38. Support - Good user Canderous 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  39. Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - Strong, solid. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support good editor well deserving of the mop.  ALKIVAR™ 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Go for it! Brisvegas 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Autofellatio Support ON WHEELS!. It's not often we see a reformed vandal up for adminship. Congratulations on your success and ability to see that there are more constructive ways of editing Wikipedia than vandalism. Best wishes! Werdna648T/C\@ 01:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support; I trust him. It's no big deal, after all. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. --Myles Long 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support: seems like a nice bloke and most oppose votes are not well-justified. Thumbelina 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support My recent interaction with the user has shown him to be knowledgeable and practical, and his lack of edits to AIV has been clarified by his assertion that he typically contacts admins on IRC directly. Contrary to whatever userboxes he may have on his page, I do not feel that he has a tendency to bite newbies or vandals, and I feel they were just meant as misguided humor. The IRC conflicts bother me a bit, and so too does his recent inactivity and inability to provide a specific reference to a conflict he's had, but not enough to oppose. The other reasons given under oppose do not seem particularly convincing. My other reasons to support (under neutral) still stand, and I would like to again state that we need as many admins as we can get to help clear out the copyvio backlog, which this user's statements and contributions demonstrate he would do quite well. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support -- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza)
  52. Strong Support - Sure, the user used to be a vandal, but I've got my "User does not insult vandals" button on and I recall it saying somewhere that once reformed, vandals can be turned into valuable editors (as Benon has done so far) and even administrators (as I'd like to see now). If nothing else, let him atone for past infractions with future antivandalism efforts. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. support this person to become a administrator Yuckfoo 17:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Weak support Will (E@) T 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support I've taken some time to think about this one. Rob Church, PilotGuy and others raise valid points, and if you pass you need to take these comments seriously. That said, I've encountered Benon myself while editing and I've been impressed with his work. There's enough good there (especially recently) to outweigh, for me, the concerns. Good luck, Gwernol 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support WOW! Just looked at the contrib page for benon (to see what times he was active), and saw there was really good anti-vandal edits etc, and an RFA, so full support, if your able to do so much goodwork like that, then i'm sure you'll be able to take it to the next level. --NigelJ talk|WMNZ 10:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Joe I 13:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Eh, I kinda thought s/he was an admin already! But if Benon was a former vandal (as other people say) that has reformed considerably, this gives me hope too. I hope to become admin in maybe late 2007 or sometime in 2008, but I don't think I'll nominate myself. 'Til then, I know there's much to mature on. Good luck in your new adminship, Benon. --Shultz IV 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Based on his answer to my query. Good luck! Anwar saadat 04:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Excellent vandal fighter. -- Tangotango 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Alright, so he's a former vandal. I think it takes guts to admit that in a RfA, and I believe in redemption. As for the possibility of Benon abusing the tools, they can always be taken away, correct? I'd give him a chance. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 06:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Great Vandal fighter. --pevarnj (t/c/@) 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Same concerns as AmiDaniel but also the concerns I hint at in my additional question. May change depending on answer. --kingboyk 08:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Answer is noted, thank you. I'm still thinking about it but probably will stick with oppose. --kingboyk 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Also not enough REAL mainspace edits for my liking, I'd contend at least a third of them are vandal reverts. NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-05-08)
  3. Oppose. Sorry. I know this might come as a shock to you and everyone in our IRC channel, but based on your past behavior I don't feel comfortable with you being an admin, based on [4] your odd behavior seen in our channel, and also your conduct in that channel, though not blantantly innapropriate, is not reflective of an admin. Though you have contributed somewhat to improvements in our channel, and you do tag articles for speedy deletion, I never see you revert vandalism on a regular basis nor ask for blocks. I don't think you are ready for such a task and you ought to observe what others are doing right before you are trusted with such tools. --Pilot|guy 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all the above. Although I acknowledge great improvement, I don't think enough time has yet pasted since last nomination to be sure editor has learned to keep calm under pressure. Also, given editor's history and previous noms., I would very much have preferred that this NOT be a self-nom. I'm also still worried editor may be too eager for the mop as a sign of power, which it isn't. Xoloz 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Xoloz. I'd prefer more time to have past between nominations. I'd consider supporting in a couple months.--cj | talk 10:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, short on experience in the project namespace and on patience. I would recommend waiting a while. Also, bear in mind that low edit counts in Wikipedia namespace lead me to infer poor knowledge of policy. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. "To all you vandals out there: This user avoids insults for vandalism, moving straight to actual bodily harm." If that is intended as a joke, it's in poor taste. I would not trust benon3 with the mop. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry that caused any trouble, ive had it for ages, ive now removed it in case it caused anyone any offence Benon 08:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose don't need more admins, and per Tony Sidaway. Ardenn 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: does not appear to be ready at this time. Jonathunder 13:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Not a chance. Rob Church (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    A message on my talk page pestered me, I think, to rationalise this. Tony Sidaway hinted at it in his reasoning above; the user is just too immature and confrontational, and doesn't seem to care about Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia so much as Wikipedia, the battleground upon which he can wage a war with vandals. Wrong attitude to vandal fighting, I think, although I don't necessarily dispute his effectiveness. I dispute that this user would make sufficient rational decisions under fire, nor keep his cool when confronted with any such mistake and asked to apologise and justify himself. Rob Church (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    This is a problem - sounds like he would make a great bouncer - keeping vandas out. Bouncers don't need maturity, they don't need complex problem solving skills, and they don't need exceptional judgment or article writing skills. If there was a way we could give him just rollback and block, and keep him in probation, that would be great. Stevage 11:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Cynical 13:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - too many issues for now. May support a non-self nom in a few months --Doc ask? 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. This comment he left on a blocked user's page indicates to me that he lacks the subtlety needed for dispute resolution: "it has been decided by the community via your rfc, that until you realise the errors of your ways we will not unblock you". It's true, but you're not going to get anyone to reform by speaking from on high about the "errors of their ways". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above. -- Gnetwerker 07:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Tony and Rob. I just get a bad feeling about this nom. Ral315 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Tony and Rob make good points about confrontational comments, and Pilotguy's note that he worries even CVU worries me. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please ask essjay about my recent conduct (or any of the senior staff of #vandalism-en-wp) maybe a few months ago i worried some members of the cvu and yes i probably did overstep the line, but my recent conduct has been nothing like this and a i even run sevral bots for the cvu now Benon 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    You run several bots? Are these registered as bots? Jonathunder 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    He means IRC reporting bots rather than wikipedia updating bots. --pgk(talk) 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    yes as pgk has pointed out they are copies of his (excellent) rc patrolling bot, sorry that was unclear Benon 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 05:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Xoloz. Needs to wait longer from last RFA. I'm not against self-nom in general but this nom would've been much stronger with the support of an active admin to point out his strengths. FloNight talk 14:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. He has come a long way and that's a big consideration for me, but he's not yet at a point where I'd feel comfortable with him having the admin tools. Various edits and comments like these are worrisome to me regarding his attitude towards vandalism. That's not my only reason to oppose, but all in all I think it's too early, sorry. --JoanneB 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - I share various of the concerns above, including the speed with which he has self-nommed since his last RfA and attitude to combatting vandalism. —Whouk (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per many of the concerns above. No single issue stands out, but there are enough small issues to concern me. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Sorry, but there are just too many serious concerns raised by the numerous opposers above for me to support at this time. Candidate also appears far too eager to acquire the tools, 3 self noms in just over 3 months after major opposition in the 1st two. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per Tony Sidaway. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm going to abstain from this one. There are a lot of things about this editor that I like: 1) I strongly appreciate that he wears his past on his sleeves, rather than getting a new account to conceal it. 2) Good use of edit summaries. 3) Lots of experience. 4) Seems friendly and rational, even when dealing with vandals. 5) I love that he is helping out with copyvios--maybe as an admin he'll be able to help clear out the copyvio back log. Now what I don't like: 1) He seems to have become quite inactive recently, only making a couple of edits a day for the last several weeks. It looks like he hit a spike of 1000+ edits in Jan 06, and since then his activity has been rapidly decreasing. 2) I'd like to see some examples of conlicts he's been involved in, to assess how he deals in those kinds of situations. 3) Based upon his recent contributions, I'm not sure he needs admin tools. I see a couple reports to AIV in the last 500 and some image tagging, not really many CSDs or involvement in AfD though. In any case, I'm definitely leaning toward support and could likely be convinced to change my vote. I'll check back in a couple days and see if anything else has come out in the conversation, then I'll likely take a stance. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note on my edits, Im not burning out or anything however ive had increasing restraints laid on my time recentlty working two jobs studying for final exams and the like, along with other increased real life calls on my times (like recovring from illness). If i had my way id spend a lot more time on wikipedia and hopefully my activity should pop back up again soon Benon 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Also im not a big user of AIV (as an rc patroller i would be as an admin) as i tend to be on irc and can bug an admin in #vandalism-en-wp to do it for me and usually get a faster response. Benon 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Also in terms of csd i tag quite a bit however im often fidning that by the time ive written out the tag and hit save amongst the many tabs i have open its either been done or an admins deleted it, anyway i hope the above responses help you ambidaniel, and if you need any clarification feel free to ask :) Benon 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed to support. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I don't think that what your currently doing needs admin tools.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primate (talk • contribs) .
  2. Neutral I agree with Primate. For every reason to support, I see another reason to oppose. (Good luck, though. It looks like the third time might just be the charm!) Steveo2 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral My personal adminship guidelines are very loose (inasmuch as adminship is no big deal); I recall only two instances in which I have opposed a candidate. I was altogether comfortable supporting here, my reservations about Benon's command of the English language (and, more importantly, his ability to communicate successfully and productively with other users), but I have found myself increasingly in accord with the reasoning of those voting oppose, and, so, even as there are still qualifications that militate in favor of Benon's being approved, I am compelled to withdraw my support; though I don't think Benon likely to go rogue and use the mop wholly for bad, concerns about his judgment linger, which concerns were not ameliorated by his answers to questions but will likely be addressed by Benon's continuing to contribute for a while (should this RfA fail, I, echoing others, would hope that the next would not be a self-nom. Joe 06:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Benon
Total edits 3982
Distinct pages edited 2755
Average edits/page 1.445
First edit 2005-08-24 13:30:46
(main) 1303
Talk 81
User 384
User talk 1822
Image 6
Image talk 2
Template 53
Help talk 1
Category 6
Wikipedia 320
Wikipedia talk 4

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: I would monitor AIV and speedy deletion categories and also would help out the counter vandalism channel on Wikipedia (we always need more admins in these areas). Also new page patrol could be made much easier when looking for copyvios. New Wikipedians, usually in good faih copy some text from their favourite website, and an adminstrator can deal with these pages on the site.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I don't think I have any contributions I would call my best contributions. Recently I expanded Sexual_Offences_Act_2003. However I'd like to think that every contribution I've made has heped to better the encylopedia, be that expanding a stub, welcoming a new user, or reverting vandalism.
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:Well, I've been involved in my fair share of conflicts (who hasn't?). My first and formost way of tackling them is to stay cool and be civil. Being uncivil and uncool just inflames the situation. The best thing to do is speak calmly with a user using a friendly tone.
If they are still bothering me, I'll move on to something else for an hour to let me calm down. Also, seeking the assisting of other more experienced editors can help me see the whole thing.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, additional questions are completely optional.

1 Could you please expand up your answer to question 3 above with specific examples?

well for a start of lot of confilct stuff i do is via the ama and e-mail mainly advising editors, and since I dont have permission to publish those e-mails (and some are quite sensitve too) i'm afraid I cant put those here.

However hopefully this is an example of me trying to help [5]

2 Why after two failed self-nominations (the previous little over a month ago) have you choosen to self-nominate yourself again?

Well i Did have someone who was going to nominate me, but i feel that a self - nomination shows that a user is activley seeking to better themselves and become a more active part of the community.

3 Please narrate in more detail what happened to make you switch from being a vandal so long ago to being a prolific contributor.

Well its relly not a particuarly great story but here goes. I was writing a legal essay on double jepoardy (yawn!) and i was looking for sources, Wikipedia was one of the many good sources i found and i thought hey why damage something that's atchually useful!. Then I started thinking hmm how can i make wikipedia better after its helped me so much with my college work and it all kind of went from there.

Question from User:dlohcierekim As always, additional questions are completely optional.

Benon, I'm sorry to read about your illness. You seem to have a lot to deal with right now. Why not wait a few weeks before trying another RfA? Thanks. User:dlohcierekim

Well i guess i could have run this a few weeks from now, in rbut real life im on the mend and i decided i would either run this before or after my final exams, and i decided to run it before my final exams, not that it would have made much diffrence i just felt that the time was right now Benon 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Only because Benon asked Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A Well the first thing to do is to talk with the user, Also appropriate steps need to be taken like blocking the sockpuppets and / or tagging, and a post at the administrator noticeboard probably wouldn't hurt either (to make sure your doing the right things) and if abuse continues take appropriate action (probably filing an arbitartion request)
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A Well it depends on wether you belive the other admin has done the right thing. Something i would never do is revert / wheel war that admin. I would discuss with them and respect the outcome of that discussion. I would also comment on the arbitration request and point out my actions. If the users where still intersted i would probably try and calm the situation down between the two editors and certinaly recommend they take on some form of mediation if the arbitration request is turned down (which would seem likley given the above senario)
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A It would probably be some way of blocking a single person on an isp like aol without locking out the legit contibutions coming from it
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A Where that user breaches the username policy, a community ban, serious vandalism only account or open proxy
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A Well you have to rember that afd is first and foremost a discussion and not a vote, hwoever id probably ask some other admins who frequesntly deal with this type of meat/sock puppetry on afd and to make sure they are sockpuppets.
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A I belive that there are no hard and fast numbers for any type of deltion debate, also the lack of participation probably shows a lack of interest in the page in genral, as long as I see some discussion i would close the deletion debate, However if there is virtually no dicussion i would probably extended the time to see if anymore dicussion is offered.
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A Well as I don't put identifying personal information on the wiki, that has alredy cost us 1 good admin (gator1). Also if im stressed i will go make a cup of tea or move on to something else to prevent me becoming stressed (Well its worked so far)
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A Well I would quite like to give my admin freinds a rest for once (im constantly bugging to block this person speedy delete that) and genrally feel as though being an adminstartor i can help serve the community bettter.
    I also feel i can help out with rc patrol and to help clear out the waful backlog of copyright problems, the recent office policy has shown what damage a copyvio could potetially cause wikipedia.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A Very much a technicl positon, They are crudeley put editors with a few extra buttons that should be used to serve the community

Additional 2-part question from kingboyk

  1. I find it admirable that you admit to vandalism. What I want to know, however, is why you did it in the first place? Secondly, if you didn't have the maturity not to vandalise when you were already a Law student at university, why should I believe you have the necessary maturity now? Thanks. --kingboyk 08:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Well I probably vandalised because i thought it was fun and got a reaction, Thinking back now its quite hard to rember exact motives that far back

In response To the maturity one well ill have to let my record speak for me and my on and off wiki conduct i since december, A comment someone made to me was "well i dont think youve been contributing for 5 months here activley and are going to run off and vandalise again"

Question from Anwar saadat As always, additional questions are completely optional.

  1. Do you accept majority vote to resolve content disputes?

Well i think the vast majorty of content disputes cosensus can usually be thrashed out by reasonable editors, wikipedia shouldn't rely on or become a majorty democracy, Sometimes a straw poll can make cosensus cleaer but shoud be an aid not the main tool in helping decide content disputes.

The above 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Benon3_2838.html"