Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ben

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] Ben

Final: (53/31/12); ended 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben (talk · contribs) - OK, this is going to be a tricky one. Please bear with me, as I've never nominated anyone for adminship before. I would like to submit Ben (talk · contribs) for your consideration. Formerly known as Benedict the Moor, Ben's a Wikipedian who has done a lot of complex work in a relatively short time (he's only been contributing since January) that has really helped Wikipedia. However, he has not being doing this work on articles. (insert shocked gasp here).

Now, before you immediately scroll down and click "oppose", let me tell you why Ben really does have a need for the sysop tools. Ben is one of the most prolific and valuable people we have when it comes to working with templates. He has contributed many, many useful improvements to the templates many of you use on a daily basis, such as all the variations of the {{user}} templates ({{user1}}, {{user2}}, etc). In his own words, editing articles is not his forte - tinkering with the templates is his calling. Without Ben's know-how and expertise, Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets would be a nightmare to navigate, and the work for the checkusers would be exponentially more than it is now. He knows the wiki mark up inside out, is very active, and he's willing to contribute his time toward making Wikipedia run more smoothly.

And this is why I feel he could really use the admin tools. At the moment, he's having to ask us admins - most of whom have a lot to keep us busy already - to make these changes. I don't mind doing so, and other admins have helped out, but some of these changes are now very complicated (he recently updated all the user templates to allow for usernames with equal signs to display properly as an interim solution before the devs are able amend MediaWiki to prevent such names being registered), and it really would be so much easier, quicker and more efficient if Ben were given the tools to do so himself. If adminship truly isn't "a big deal", then this would be a no-brainer. Excellent user + huge amount of knowledge + genuine need for the tools should = sysop status. Many of our best admins don't edit articles - adminship is a janitorial position, and pages other than articles need janitorial wikilove too.

As I write this, Wikipedia protected edit requests is once again logjammed - up to 65 requests at this time. We really, really need people with sysop tools who are willing - and, perhaps more so - capable of tackling these edits, as many of them are very technical and fiddly. Ben is a prime candidate for such a task.

Ben admittedly does not need every single one of the tools, and I think you'll find this reflected in his responses to the questions. He doesn't want, or intend to use, the block button (this is a good thing), just the additional editing tools admins are granted (editing protected templates in particular, but also protection, moving over redirects, and suchlike).

Ben is bright, polite, helpful, and maintains an excellent sense of humour. I have not once seen him upset or take affront to any criticism (not that he has ever received much), and he conducts himself in a tremendously civil and friendly manner at all times. Ben's made numerous contributions to RFCN helping new editors - for which he got a barnstar, as well one for helping further NPOV. I know barnstars don't mean much in the great scheme of things, but they usually suggest a user is good stuff ... and this is very much the case here. I strongly believe Ben can be trusted with the tools, and I would beg your indulgence in order to support this RFA. Thanks. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored by Neil's nomination, and gratefully accept it in the hope that I may be worthy of his and the community's trust.
My first and second replies to Neil's kind invitation express both what I hope for and what I hope against in an admin role here.
I hope you'll grant me "trusted editor" status for the purpose of maintaining protected functional pages like templates, without having to pass the workload on to other people. For instance, Neil kindly but mistakenly credits me with the present status of {{user}}, also known as {{user1}} -- but, at the moment I'm writing this, my updates to the (protected) templates {{user}}, {{user0}}, {{user5}}, and {{userlinks}} are still sitting on an admin's talkpage, waiting to be moved in, since 11 March 2007. (These have now been updated. Ben 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)) I've updated the (unprotected) templates {{user2}}, {{user3}}, {{user4}}, and {{user6}} through {{user12}}, among others, and I created {{usercheck}}; and I think you can tell the difference just by looking at the template pages. I'd like to be able to fix problems on a more timely basis, especially if I had anything prior to do with the code that's having (or causing) the problem.
I hope not to get caught up in other aspects of adminship, if possible. I don't like having power-over-others; I just want the ability-to-do-things-myself. If the blocking etc. powers can be left turned off while allowing me editing access, I'd be just as happy. Put another way: I don't want a badge-and-cudgel, just a copy of the keys to the tool cabinet, if you feel you can trust me to use those wisely and well.
If you don't feel sure of that much; if I've given you any reason to believe I'd abuse that access; or if my track record is simply too short for you to go by; please feel free to vote Oppose without worrying about my feelings. My feelings won't be hurt; I'll keep on tinkering, either way. The only difference will be whether I have to pester already-overworked people like Neil and Daniel in order to get some of the changes "moved into production". -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Usercheck:   Ben (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Whatever presents itself that I have both time and skill to do -- both the latter being limiting factors just now. I never "anticipated" doing what I'm doing now, even as a non-admin. Chancing on a remark about the blocking of a "long and nonsensical" username (which I identified as the Latin name of the historical Roland) got me involved in WP:RFCN, for which I did some header revisions and wrote some simple non-biting message templates like {{rfc-unc}}, and then wrote parallels for other WP:RFC areas (see a list in rfc-unc's documentation). Mentioning some other tools I'd developed got back a request from Akhilleus for similar tools to help his areas, which is what led to {{rfcu}}, {{ssp}}, revamping WP:SSP#Reporting suspected sock puppets to add WP:SSP/Search and WP:SSP/Create (again originally suggested by Akhilleus), and then moving that whole section out so it could be transcluded both there and at WP:SOCK/ACCUSER to keep the instructions congruent and avoid either inconsistency or reinventing-the-wheel. What's going to come along next that needs fixing, tweaking, or inventing from scratch, and will it be in a protected area that needs admin access or in an open area that I could already get to now? I have no idea. I'm just an online tinkerer and tool-and-die maker here; where I go and what I do depends on what the guys on the factory floor need. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The templates; the work at WP:RFCN and WP:SSP; and, though I don't know whether anyone's even read it yet, I harbor in my heart the hope that WP:APBB may someday help add to our community's patient, calm, and good-humored acceptance of our own and each other's fallibility. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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: I haven't been involved in much mainspace editing, working more backstage than onstage. To the extent there's been any editing disagreement at all among the technical-doc writers, it's been civil, courteous, collegial, even friendly -- how to space small print for legibility, or the format of templates, or should a TOC be positioned here or there, well, perhaps these are not the stuff of heated controversy. Perhaps I've been lucky in my choices of topics, perhaps I just haven't been around long enough, or perhaps I'm hanging around with people who don't get too political about editing.

Outside of editing, too, I prefer the direct approach. For instance, I worry when I see what seems to be a tendency to reach for the block button rather than talk directly to people -- like username-blocking without even asking the user to change his or her name -- but, by the same token, it falls to me to bring that up with the blocker or proponent of blocking. That was the nature of my first exchange on Wikipedia, with "Nearly Headless Nick" over the blocking of "Hruodlandus", and Nick responded courteously and immediately undid his block. I suppose I wouldn't have lingered long here had I received the opposite sort of response, or received it often thereafter; I'd simply have found other things to do.

The one most disturbing issue to me since my arrival -- and, I suspect, to many other people, at least since the start of the year -- has been the whole Essjay dispute. By this I refer not to Essjay's own actions up to and including his departure, but the rift in the community over those actions and the appropriate response. I think Essjay's decision to resign and leave voluntarily (and relatively soon) spared the community a lot of heartbreaking argument and hardening mutual resentment; so for that, at least, we all owe him thanks. I hope never to be the cause of such a divisive dispute, but if I ever am, then I hope I'll have the sensibility and sensitivity to make an full and open-hearted apology, resign whatever posts I hold, take my lumps from those who still need to give them, and then leave to moot further debate. -- Ben TALK/HIST 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
4. What other username(s) have you used in the past, or is this too personal a question? — CharlotteWebb 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
A: My username recently changed from Benedict the Moor. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was aware of that from reading this page. I was referring to accounts used prior to Benedict the Moor (which is merely a former name of the account you are using now). Sorry for the confusion. — CharlotteWebb 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • I thought this item on Ben's talk page, responding to an inquiry about his first edit would provide helpful background to some doubters. That edit revealed a new user that was surprisingly well informed about policy. I hope the response and interacton there would aid in giving perspective on the apparently brief time of Ben's presence--as indicated by an account creation date. Any one of us could have been a dedicated user and silent participant long before before creating a formal account. -- Yellowdesk 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly why I'd like to know what informal accounts he might have previously used for his edits, as I have asked him in question 4. Apparently he misunderstood and told me what I already knew about the username change of his current account. Hopefully I have made myself clearer now, and I eagerly anticipate a response. — CharlotteWebb 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support as nominator, of course! Neil (not Proto ►) 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per nominator's convincing argument and obvious need for some of the tools by candidate. It's not all about the blocking, there are some rather technical things that admins need to do around here as well. Bubba hotep 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I really hope that no-one gets an attack of editcountitis here. Although the count is lower than some, it is in this application virtually irrelevant. Ben clearly has a need for the tools in his specific area of expertise, and the project equally clearly needs him to have them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs) Comment Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support A solid technical reason for using the admin tools to improve the project. This editor is also responsible and can break out in to the main spaces for admin tasks and backlogs too. (aeropagitica) 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - aeropagitica says it very well. There's a need, and edits outside the template namespace are good. --h2g2bob 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - per nominator's excellent nomination. -- Nick t 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Absolute Support. Never have I seen a candidate I was more willing to support. ^demon[omg plz] 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support definitely! Should be an asset to the admin team. - Anas Talk? 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - Would Ben be willing to make himself open to recall? - Richard Cavell 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support answer to question one fills me with happiness; WP:SSP = backlogged. Btw Neil, a great nomination for your first. Majorly (o rly?) 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Changing to neutral. Majorly (o rly?) 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support In three months has given excellent contribution to WP:UTM and is the man in the know for templates regarding WP:RFC. Have no doubt this editor will be an asset to the community. Khukri 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I prefer to vote not on time on Wikipedia but instead on how much the editor is question has done. I believe that Ben has done enough to prove that he can be a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per excellent nomination, excellent impression of the user, and support to those who do the work behind the scenes. --Xnuala 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Excellent nomination and great answers to the questions. I have absolutely no problem with supporting someone who's only been here a short time if they demonstrate as much skill and need as User:Ben does. —Cuiviénen 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. An odder case than most RfAs I've participated in but I think he can use the tools very, very well. Good impression overall and I trust he will use the buttons to improve the project. Pass the whipped cream, please. Pigmandialogue 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Very happy to support because there is a clear need for the tools and I can see no reason not to trust this user's judgement. Will (aka Wimt) 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Can't quite believe I'm Supporting per Majorly. I've very jittery about the low article space edits and lack of experience, in that I think anyone who represents the project as an admin should have a decent all round grasp of what we do. That said, if ever there is a good argument for dividing the tools up this is it. So, in no small part due to the eloquent case put forward by Neil in his nom, I'm going to WP:AGF that this editor will voluntarily restrict his useage to his specialist area (at least for now) and implore him to dabble just a little bit more in the other aspects of Wikipedia. Good luck, this RfA is going to be interesting! Rockpocket 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Per the nom and pretty much everyone above, I couldn't say much better. —Krellis (Talk) 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Normally I wouldn't support someone with so few mainspace edits, but Ben has a clear need to edit protected templates, and I trust him not to misuse the rest of the tools. In my interactions with him he's been nothing but good-natured, with a great sense of humor. There's been at least one instance where he got some pretty sharp criticism after a change to one of the templates used on WP:RCU, and he responded with good grace and no trace of defensiveness or hostility--so I feel sure he'll be level-headed and calm in times of stress. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. support -- mainspace is quite low, but i seem to forget that there is a backend to this machine. working on templates is essentially building the building blocks, and that's a great contribution. the_undertow talk 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. You're on the right path. I don't care about the low mainspace edits: we're here to build an encyclopedia, that's right. But not everybody that works at Britannica writes articles. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 07:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Ben clearly has a need for the tools, and I see no reason not to give them to him. I fail to see how Wikipedia benefits by forcing him to edit articles when it is not his forte, talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face. Rje 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support No reason to think Ben will misuse the tools. We need to stop having editcountits.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. I'd prefer to see more edits, too, but what's the worst that could happen? Every admin action is reversible. I see no evidence of irresponsibility, and if he messes up badly enough, we can always burn him at the stake take away his mop. A Train take the 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support He is pleasent to work with and willing to listen to reason. He is also willing to teach an old dog a new trick when necessary. --SilverhandTalk 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per criteria set out on my userpage plus invaluable special skills. Edivorce 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Excellent contributor on the technical side, demonstrated need for the tools. I don't see any reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse them. I believe he'd do valuable work with the templates and documentation, and most likely grow into other admin roles. Time/experience is, admittedly, more an issue; however, by looking at the work he's already done, I think it's safe to say he's experienced enough to be an admin -- at least in the areas where he intends to focus. And I believe him when he says he'd avoid the admin areas where he doesn't. He's certainly been willing enough to deal with admins during his template work, so if someone should bring such an issue to him, I'd expect he would consult with another admin, rather than do something potentially rash or ill-founded. Shimeru 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. I've just done a whole lot of template work for him on protected templates, and I am confident giving Ben the tools will be a 100% gain for Wikipedia. That, and he's articulate and trustworthy. Strong support. Daniel Bryant 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Give him the tools he needs. --Carnildo 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Good answers, nice template work, and an excellent sense of humor. He might not have that much Mainspace experience, but hey, neither did I when I was nominated, or for that matter, a great deal of other admins. Shadow1 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. If the answer to Q1 was the usual platitudes, I wouldn't support, but it's not and there's a sound rationale here for asking for the tools. Short of whitelist system for editing protected templates, &c, or more granular rights, neither of which are likely to happen as I understand it, it's all or nothing. It'll have to be all then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support He has not been editing long, but he seems to have a the high level of maturity that's required for adminship. Gutworth 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support based on his responses to the nom questions & to opposition/neutral concerns. I think he'll do a great job in his niche. KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support From what I've seen, Ben is a very good contributor. Johann...[ T...C ] 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support This is a potential administrator's administrator. Already doing the desired work, advocated by administrators that appreciate the specialization and contribution. -- Yellowdesk 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Kinda selfish support As Nick says somewhere below, we need this RfA to pass to cut down on backlogs, and make our work easier. Normally I wouldn't support someone with less mainspace edits than some people make in an hour, but this is a somewhat unusual case. Oh, and he's a good, hard worker, who's unlikely to misuse the buttons, and might in fact do us all a world of good if he does get them. Hoping this gets through, – riana_dzasta 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Stong Support I really can't think of a time where me and Ben have agreed on anything, however, the compelling arguments that he makes during discussion have many a time blown me away. Ben does amazing reasearch into problems before acting on anything, he makes sure that he fully understands the policies/guidlines before commenting or changing things. I ask myself, would Ben abuse the tools? Of course not. Does Ben need the tools? Yes, to edit protected templates, and protect them where necessary without running to an admin. Is more time on wikipedia going to change the way Ben acts? No its not, he will continue his excellent template work, and as an admin, it would give him the power to even further compliment his current work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ryan... there are no words I can find to say... except:   thank you.   -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. I find I'm in full agreement with those who are voting oppose because of the lack of mainspace edits, but, having read Neil's remarks, and some of the comments from the Support voters, I feel that if every there's a time when we should make an exception, this is it. I don't expect this RfA to succeed, but my vote is nevertheless sincere. If it does succeed, I would urge Ben to adhere to his stated intent not to block, but also not to try to make any kind of controversial edits to policy pages until he has a lot more experience with what it's like to edit articles. From reading the admin noticeboards, I see that some admins don't understand that 3RR doesn't have to mean the same revert each time; and I notice that there's a lot of disagreement about civility blocks, especially on established users, so it would be sad to see an inexperienced user being adminned and immediately stirring up some hornets' nests. If I were less confident of Ben's character, through having seen his calm and courteous behaviour, I'd be much less inclined to support. As it is, give him the tools! ElinorD (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. I doubt that Ben spent months and many hours craftily making templates to build up his cred so he can get sysop-ed and wipe the Main Page with an evil laugh and a sinister grin. He has a clear need for the tools and seems unlikely to abuse them. ➪HiDrNick! 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Months of work, minutes of mischief, and then an indefblock.... hmmmm, let me think over the payoff in that brilliant scheme.... naaah. However, the evil laugh and sinister grin sound like fun. When the moon is high and the air is still, listen for the faint echo of mad cackling from deep in the template labs: "It lives, you see? It lives !...." -- Ben TALK/HIST 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support WP:IAR. If your RFA criteria stand in the way of improving the project, ignore them. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. 'Strong support per trialsanderrors. ViridaeTalk 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support trustworthy enough.-- danntm T C 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - I don't see an exigent need for adminship (and the edit-protected backlog was mostly because Qxz (talk · contribs) decided to request to tag every protected template and request for it to be labeled as such), but nonetheless trust this user to correctly implement policy and not screw up the technical aspects. So long as it doesn't go to his head (which he has indicated it won't, which I hope is true), I shall say "good luck, and may any latent sysopery you receive make Wikipedia better!" GracenotesT § 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, as I am impressed by the quality of the editor's work and focus. I don't think broad-purpose admins are necessary. I would hope, however, that when other editors start asking you to perform admin tasks in areas you are not familiar with that you seek the proper guideance or refer the matter to a more experienced admin. --Mus Musculus 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Weak support - Its weak because of the lack of mainspace contributions but his other contributions seem too useful to be completely overlooked. We are writing an encyclopedia here, but there are many backstage functions that greatly assist in the creation of this encyclopedia of which this editor has, in a short amount of time, shown significant knowledge of — especially in the areas in which he has stated he will be focusing on as an admin.↔NMajdan•talk 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. The candidate seems to have a special talent and interest in template-tinkering, but lacks the ability to edit protected templates. I'm convinced that the project would be better served by giving this guy that ability. The fact that his contributions in other ways is small doesn't change that. Bucketsofg 17:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per all of the above and below. Nobody brought up any substantial reason to oppose. He's a specialist, so what? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, work like this can make life easier for thousands of editors. So let's make doing it easier for him! Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. support. looking thru ben’s talk page (in which he is consistently gracious, including handling false accusations of being a sockpuppet), a random sample of his edits, and the new, improved templates (i’ve noticed improvements lately, just didn’t know he was behind many of them), i have to say that i have absolutely no reservations about giving ben admin tools. considering that the “rules” for number of edits and length of stay are unwritten, is it really so hard to bend them when an obviously special case comes along? --barneca (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. support In this case, given his clear specialisation and quality of work (and the fact that he would be able to do more work with the tools), in my mind there isn't a big worry over short time/low counts; there's no reason to suspect he'd be a problem. J. Spencer 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Moral support - it's a pity this seems set to fail at this point, but I'll register anyway. Very convincing nomination; we need people like this guy, and it would be good for the project if he had the buttons even if he doesn't match the profile of your run-of-the-mill admin. The admin corps too has room for specialists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. His unconventional namespace count is, as Jimbo himself would put it, "no big deal". In addition to his oft-lauded work on templates, he is now busy cleaning up Wikipedia:List of banned users, which needs constant babysitting from experienced users. His beneficial edits to the page show strong knowledge and experience with Wikipedia policies and practices. szyslak (t, c) 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Upon further review and considering others' arguments. Should be fine. - Denny 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Ben looks like he may be a valuable asset, but in 3 months of editting, it is just simply too early to tell. He needs to have time to run into some tough situaitons so that we can see how he will respond. Also, I don't mind some disproportionality in what namespace Ben edits, but a near complete lack of edits to the article space is troubling to me. It seems if nothing else that his Template work would be enhanced by having more experience with how the average editor edits. So long as adminship is one indivisible chunk (I.e. we can't give him part of the responsibility without all of the responsibility) then I need to be convinced he is ready for all of the responsibility. I can' be sure of that with this little time and this few edits to the main article space. I appreciate the work Ben is doing and I wish him the best, however this nomination turns out. Johntex\talk 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Also, Ben does not have an e-mail set. Setting an e-mail is important for anyone who is doing detailed work. If something goes wrong, it may be necessary to reach him through e-mail. Johntex\talk 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Done, since you ask it. I simply hadn't had the need for a non-job email account until this, and it still isn't the fastest way to reach me: if I'm online at all, I'm likely here, where a post to my talk page will flag me at once. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you very much - I appreciate your responsiveness and cooperation. Johntex\talk 01:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, he could just set the e-mail on now if he wants. It's not like it's some systematic process that he has to complete, just to get e-mail set. Nishkid64 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes he could, but he hasn't. And even if he did, it would not affect my main objection, so how is your comment going to change anything? Johntex\talk 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Relax. I was commenting on your statement afterwards, not your !vote. Nishkid64 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - 3 months experience is simply not enough. Michael 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Any reason for it not being enough? It's plenty long enough. Majorly (o rly?) 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Less than 3 months here and less than 100 Mainspace edits. Needs wider experience. Zaxem 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose To be precise, 2 months and 2 days, so very much less than 3 months. Although he has talents outside of article writing, the current article writng does not even constitute basic exhibition of the fundamentals required. [1]. Of the 78 edits, about 40 are tweaking the sorting of the categories, and the latest 40 are creating shortcuts to WP pages and are not actually article edits at all. No actual tweaks the actual content to show understanding of NPOV/RS/V etc... Also the shortcuts were the 40 most recent edits, so he has not edited a single article for one month now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's right, I'm not applying for the post of encyclopedia editor, but for infrastructure tinkerer. I figure the editors upstairs will be more comfortable doing their jobs if someone downstairs keeps the water, power, and heating and cooling systems running. Or as someone else once said: Ve can't all be der first violiners in dis orchestra; some of us has to push der vind t'roo der trombone.

    That said, had you wanted to test my proofreading skills, I'd have inserted the second "i" in "writng", and the word "of" between "actual tweaks" and "the actual content", if it weren't so gauche and declassé for a nominee to edit the votes. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  5. Oppose He's a great editor, and I came here ready to support. However I have serious trouble supporting when there are only 78 mainspace edits. ShadowHalo 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    And of all the mainspace-editor admins you have, how many were working on the problems with the user__ templates and documentation not addressing how to handle usernames like E=MC^2? You hire the liberal-arts majors to write your articles, not to ferret out the wiring problems in the walls. -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    And at the same time, an admin should have demonstrated knowledge of all the core policies. I'm willing to be flexible with the number of mainspace edits since you have because of your contributions elsewhere, but when your total number of mainspace edits is around the number I make in a day, it becomes a serious problem. ShadowHalo 06:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose-Great editor, but 2 months is way to little. Most people don't even make it after 6, especially with only 2,000 edits. Little time here makes me wonder if he's experienced enough on guidelines. Would reconsider in 4 months (6 months experience). --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is one nomination that really needs to pass, it'll free up admins to concentrate on more important work, editing and janitorial work, and considering the backlogs that are turning up everywhere, opposing a true mission specialist is not good for the project. -- Nick t 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Blnguyen too new, lack of article writing, or any main namespace for that matter. Namespace edits is needed to understand wikipedia policies Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Do I understand this one? I ask because it's kind of a contentious area just now, you know. -- Ben TALK/HIST 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose You will certainly make it when you come back in a few months as long as you keep on keeping on. --Kukini hablame aqui 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Lacks mainspace experience. MaxSem 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Um... 78 mainspace edits? I'm honestly amazed that someone doesn't meet my standards for mainspace editing. I put very little importance on it compared to pretty much everyone else, but 78 is simply not enough. I never thought I'd actually be disagreeing with anybody but the candidate in opposing for lack of mainspace edits... -Amarkov moo! 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, it's clear that "lack of mainspace edits" is a concern for a number of people. May I ask you, and the others with that concern, a counter-question? If it turned out that my activity stays much as it now is -- perhaps on rare occasion straying into mainspace for technical fixes like sortkeys and other minor edits, but mostly staying behind the scenes trying to help the backstage run smoother -- will you feel that this is not a worthwhile contribution to the project, and that I should not have the tools to do a better job of only that? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Only 2 months is not enough experience plus as mentioned by Amarkov only 78 mainspace Edits but your contribution to Wikipedia is excellent and believe me if you would have applied around May or June, more people would have supported you (even me)..--Cometstyles 13:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per above. S. Miyano 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose too soon, per above, and Johntex. --MECU≈talk 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. A very new contributor with almost no experience working on the encyclopedia would need exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. I'm not terribly sympathetic to the issue of tinkering with protected templates. As it is, the volume of tinkering encourages proliferation of more templates without a clearly demonstrated need, and the giant mass of templates now in use is a serious obstacle to bringing in nontechnical contributors. --Michael Snow 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, in point of fact, proper tinkering lets fewer templates do the same job, or the same number do more jobs. Case in point: the original {{user-t}} ("t" for translator) allowed one name and one alternate project to give you the IDs for both projects, e.g.:
         {{user-t|BlankVerse|es}} → BlankVerse (t·c) / es:BlankVerse (t·c)
    Then a whole second template, {{user-t2}}, was created for when the user had a different username: as originally coded,
         {{user-t2|BlankVerse|es|VersaBlanca}} → BlankVerse (t·c) / es:VersaBlanca (t·c).
    Useful concept, but a bit of tinkering let {{user-t}} do both jobs:
         {{user-t|BlankVerse|es|VersaBlanca}} → BlankVerse (t·c) / es:VersaBlanca (t·c)
    That freed up {{user-t2}} to cover two alternate projects:
         {{user-t2|BlankVerse|es|ja}} → BlankVerse (t·c) / es:BlankVerse (t·c) / ja:BlankVerse (t·c)
    or if the usernames differ, then
         {{user-t2|BlankVerse|es|ja|VersaBlanca|Haiku}} → BlankVerse (t·c) / es:VersaBlanca (t·c) / ja:Haiku (t·c)
    I tinkered with these two existing templates and made them more flexible; that didn't require making more. If I were going to create another in that series, it wouldn't be "t3", it would go straight for a much higher number, and let any unneeded links simply disappear, as now happens with these two, e.g.:
         {{user-t2|BlankVerse}} → BlankVerse (t·c) .
    You'd only need to remember one template, and put in only as many alternate projects as you wanted to cite.

    Likewise, the {{rfcu}} link added to {{user5}} simply doesn't appear unless there actually is a WP:RFCU subpage on that user; for most people it will never be seen, but it'll show up to flag possible problem users, which can help the folks at WP:SSP:
         {{user5|Jimbo Wales}} → Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
         {{user5|Mykungfu}} → Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

    The last six links in {{usercheck}} are multi-function: if there's no such subpage, they turn grey, and then link to the main page (finding any unprocessed entry, e.g. RfArbs not yet accepted and subpaged), so you can file a report if you feel one's needed:
         {{usercheck|Jimbo Wales}} → Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)
         {{usercheck|Mykungfu}} → Mykungfu (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks  confirmedsuspected)
    One "well-tinkered" template does the job of many. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    The demonstration is nice, but I do not mean to question your versatility in designing templates. The observation about tinkering was not directed at your personal contribution, but at the problem of too many people creating, tinkering with, and using templates without, as I said, a clearly demonstrated need. This creates a significant impediment to novice contributors. The unreadable-to-human-eyes syntax I see above in the edit window as I'm writing this comment is a case in point. --Michael Snow 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    May I gently suggest that you look at the template documentation, which (in normal viewing mode) was intended for human eyes? The audience gets to view the quiet pastoral scene; behind the backdrop are the ropes, pulleys, and sandbags, which only the stage crew should handle. I'm auditioning for crew, not cast. -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    If I may be so bold... I think what Michael is trying to say is that he believes Wikipedia in general should be making less use of templates. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, the difference between "audience" and "cast" and "crew" becomes a very slim difference. I think Michael is trying to say that when "audience" member who goes to edit an article and encounters a bunch of complicated syntax may be scared off from ever editing. I'm not sure I got it right, so Michael please slap me if I put the wrong words in your mouth. Johntex\talk 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    To be so bold in return... If you don't want to use a template, then don't. A template that no-one wants to use will sit quietly on the shelf gathering dust, not leap out at unwary travellers and demand that they use it.

    But often using a template on a page is not only easier, but makes it easier to read, even in edit mode, than all the wikitext you would have had to use in its place. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    Johntex has read me right and said it well. And to say that people should just not use templates if they don't want to deal with them misses the point. Editors have to deal with these templates whether they themselves use such things or not, because other people use them. It's inherent in collaborative editing. --Michael Snow 06:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. No, needs longer time as a wikipedian. Retiono Virginian 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Inexperience is a simple problem to remedy: just stick around for a while longer, doing a bit wider variety of tasks. Xoloz 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Extremely low mainspace edit count. I am impressed with the large amount of work Ben has done to the templates, but he needs more work in the mainspace. Anyone who is nominated for adminship should not have a very low ratio of mainspace edits to other edits: roughly 5% of Ben's overall edit are to the mainspace (though this figure will be out of date soon). Acalamari 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Weak oppose. I can overlook the inexperiene in good faith, but I just can't overlook the mainspace edits being practically nonexistent. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. The nom says that he is a template person primarily and that's his forte, which is good, but for some reason I still feel slightly uncomfortable giving him access to all the tools.--Wizardman 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose but I hope he'll be back with some more time. I do think tinkering with protected templates is something I'd be happy empowering Ben to do, but his answer to #3 makes me nervous: specifically, if he hasn't yet been involved in a contentious situation, this is an experience he should have before becoming an admin rather than afterwards. Incidentally, anyone who needs an admin with good template experience, drop me a line. I don't do that much template work but I know how and I like it. Mangojuicetalk 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Over the years, I have been "involved in contentious situations", and have found that it's generally better to try keeping situations from becoming contentious in the first place than to wait until they've become that way to try cooling them down. That's why I tend to treat people gently in real life, not just online. That's why I support talking to people directly rather than going straight for the block button in borderline conflicts. That's also why I wrote the __Concern templates (see specific prompt).

    The recent update to all the User__ templates is my attempt to keep another situation from becoming contentious. Recently someone discovered that {{vandal}} didn't work if he simply plugged in a username containing an equal sign; his solution was to call for a policy change forbidding such names. I could see that becoming a contentious situation, as suddenly editors like E=MC^2 (who started in February 2005 and had never been blocked) get herded off to WP:CHU. My counter-solution was simply to have each User__ template's documentation explain the use of the "1=username" option, and (per an excellent suggestion by VectorPotential) add the option of a named variable "User=username", since everyone's familiar with the format [[User:username]] already, and since adding the option wouldn't impede anyone's normal use. Now the contentious situation need not develop, thus I, alas, may have no opportunity to demonstrate how cool a head I can keep in it.

    Would it have been better to let the contention actually occur and become widespread, so that I could have that experience? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    I like this response better than what you actually wrote for #3, because it at least describes your approach. But my objection stands on the basis of experience. If you had been involved in a tough dispute, I might have been willing to accept less experience. But, no, I don't think it's right to seek conflict. IMO, just try again in, say, two or three months. Mangojuicetalk 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Article and article talk edits plus general lack of experience. My personal observations of Ben have all been positive and if he continues on the same track I would be happy to support him when he has more experience, but I just can't support someone who has only been contributing for a couple of months and has made so few edits to the mainspace. Sarah 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    No problem, Sarah; I look forward to working with you, too. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Lack of experience (see the short period), lack of mainspace edits.--Kamikaze 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, lacks of experience. I believe you need more participation in article writing and article discussions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such experiences are needed. Terence 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per concerns brought up above. Yuser31415 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Not enough experience. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Very Reluctant Oppose I hate to oppose an editor who's doing work that I could never do, but we do hand out all the tools at once, including block button, and I'd need to see more community interaction at least (and some article edits would be great, too). Ben, I really hope you run again after a bit if you don't make it this time. You seem like an asset to the project. IronDuke 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, per above. Just 78 edits mainspace out of 2000+ total (still at the time I vote here) is something unbelievable for an admin. Try to increase your mainspace and next time I'll support. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. I don't mind so much the template work or the lack of mainspace edits (although I do admit that it does affect my vote somewhat), but 2 months is below what I would consider a minimum. All the tools come together, and there's too little interaction to tell whether you're equipped to handle the other tools. See you in a couple months, where I'll probably support. Ral315 » 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. An admin should either be a prolific article editor or at least have been one in the past. If he lacks that experience, I don't think he is suitable for the job. I also just don't think it is healthy, from a community perspective, to have admins who aren't article editors. Everyking 09:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Why? ViridaeTalk 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Not enough article experience. Dionyseus 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I'm a bit reluctant to support. Has only been here 2 months and has not been involved in areas that are contentious. While I can clearly see a need for the tools, a little more seniority would convince me he's able to keep a cool head in conflict. —dgiestc 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Asking people to change their usernames is an area that easily can be, and often has been, contentious. My part in that area has been to reduce the contention as much as I could. This is also why I wrote diplomatic and low-contention templates for others to use or paraphrase: {{UsernameConcern}} / {{uncon}} / {{rfc-unc}} spawned {{ConductConcern}} / {{ucc}} / {{rfc-ucc}} and {{ArticleConcern}} / {{artc}} / {{rfc-arc}}. The point was not to have any fight start in the first place, rather than wait until tempers were high to try cooling everyone down. If I'd been in many fights to prove my mettle, I'd think that should be more worrisome. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. While I agree that the tools would be useful, I think a few more months experience, per comments made by Dgies, is necessary to gain, well, experience in editing. I agree that 2-3 months total is just too little to make an informed decision at this time. I would reconsider in another 3 months. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral (changed from support) what the... 78 mainspace??? Well I'm really surprised at that you know... anyway, can't really oppose because you intend to work in a backlogged area that you have experience with, but 78? Sheesh that's pretty low tbh - remember we're writing an encyclopedia as well :P Good luck anyway, I still hope you pass. Majorly (o rly?) 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral at present. I would very much like to support- Neil's nomination is very convicing and I have had positive interactions with Ben. I have no problem with the amount of time he has been here. But his 78 mainspace contribs and 39 talk contribs are far too few. They reveal minimal involvement in generating encyclopedic content (and indeed in reverting vandalism). Ben has no real experience of editorial disputes on Wikipedia. It is almost impossible from his projectspace contribs to judge his knowledge of policy as regards deletion policy outside of templates. Given that Ben has little or no experience of most areas that administrators deal with, I don't think the good he would do with templates alone is enough to warrant adminship yet. WjBscribe 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I have no problem with the lack of edits in the mainspace and he has been doing some great work, but three months is just not long enough. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per Johntex's oppose arguments. I think Ben will make a very good admin, and will support him in a later nomination. Jeffpw 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - like others, I agree that right now not quite enough experience, and can lean on others to get template changes thru, but a thanks to you for template help and maybe in the near enough future... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Much potential, but too little experience in mainspace edits and time. Stick with it for a few more months and I'll happily support. Realkyhick 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. I'd really like to support, and I agree that you could do well with the tools. I'm not as concerned about the mainspace edits, but I'd prefer it if you had a bit more experience. Go for another RFA in 3 or so months and I'll support. Cheers- CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia should first and foremost be an encyclopedia; I firmly believe that administrators should have made a decent range of article edits. Additionally, the fact that this nomination was made after such a (relatively) short time on the project leads me to think that there would be no harm in waiting a while longer. However, I sincerely hope to see this editor nominated again, after a little more (and more diverse) time with us here.--Scimitar parley 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral - You sound like a great user who will be a real asset to Wikipedia! I applaud your work on templates and I agree with your need for the tools. I sincerely hope that you will return when you have a few more months and when you have had the time to make a few hundred edits to articles. Article editing does not require as much technical skill as template editing, to be sure; but it will be interesting, helpful, and will expose you to the wikipedia experience that most contributors have. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. The complete lack of article writing and editing is really a concern, because administrators are managers of the encyclopedia. There is not much experience on deletion process either (except TFD). On principle, I have reservations about supporting someone to adminship which provides them with admin tools in all parts of Wikipedia, including the main article namespace, before they have any experience with writing the encyclopedia. With that said, I cannot really see anything where Ben has done something wrong. And I can see a lot of good work here as well, the candidate is kind, civil, and handles himself well. I don't think that he would go rouge if promoted, even though the comparative short list of experience may induce some mistakes. His work with templates has also been tremendously beneficial. Lack of work with the encyclopedia itself is worrisome, but can to some degree be compensated by truly outstanding work elsewhere. Working with articles is not as tough as it might seem, and I think that some experience with that will be tremendously beneficial to the candidates understanding of 99% of Wikipedia's facets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 21 March 2007 (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.