Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon4

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 (57/24/4) ended 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Benon (talk · contribs) – Wikipedia is constantly getting more and more attention from the press; as many of you know, it was recently even on the front page of the New York Times! While this exposure has attracted many valuable Wikipedia contributors, it has also brought upon us hordes of vandals. And as Wikipedia continues to gain more and more popularity, it is clear that the onslaught will not slacken; rather, it will get worse. To deal with this, it is imperative that Wikipedia have a team of skilled and experienced vandal-whackers to ensure that Wikipedia continues to be a valuable Internet resource. And we must give these vandal-fighters all the tools that they need to do the job.

Sadly, however, I am not completely confident that we are doing this. When a vandal has been warned a multitude of times, yet continues to vandalize, it is extremely important that the vandal get blocked in a timely manner. Otherwise, the vandal will continue to undermine all of our hard work on Wikipedia. Yet, when vandals are reported on AIV, it sometimes takes more than 20 minutes before the offending user is blocked [1] [2]! The solution is clear: we need more vandal-fighter administrators so that Wikipedia can deal with not only the current level of vandalism, but also future, more severe, levels of vandalism that are likely to follow further Wikipedia publicity.

Benon is the type of person that we need with the mop right now. Since December 2005, he has been hard at work fighting vandalism, and has amassed over 4,700 edits. He is always kind and courteous to other editors, and is also involved in WP:AMA. Through his vast amount of work, he has demonstrated his loyalty to the wikiCause. So, for the benefit of Wikipedia, I move that benon be promoted to an administrator. -- Where 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a comment I'd like to put here: I am dyslexic, and I find written English, especially spelling, hard. Benon 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Benon 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support -- Drini 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator -- Where 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Rama's Arrow 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. why not?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good user and has contributed well. G.He 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support as I did last time. This user is clearly experienced and will do a good job with the mop. Is the user going to abuse admin tools? No. So what is the problem with letting this user become an admin? DarthVader 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support just to counter the silly "oppose, poor English" votes. If you look hard enough, there are admins with equally bad English; in addition, this user has demonstrated knowledge of policy, and will not abuse the tools. Kimchi.sg 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, someone doesn't have to have perfect spelling and grammar to be an administrator, especially given a condition that would make these difficult. Installing a spellchecker is yet another indicator of his good faith and great potential. --Alphachimp talk 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Low chance of tool misuse + high chance of good tool use = support (again). I don't see high number of RFA's as an indication of thirst for power, rather an eagerness to help fight vandals (the problem laid out in the nomination that Benon can help with). Petros471 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support passes my RFA criteria. Ready for the mop. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support, too soon, but you can't deny he's a good user. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, always good to have vandalism-focused admins. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support sure. Crazynas t 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Merovingian {T C @} 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. You can't blame him for not making article contributions because he is dyslexic. You also can't blame him for being so impressive that people want to nominate him again and again. Sheesh! Ashibaka tock 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. – ugen64 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Doesn't strictly meet my standards, but I think it's reasonable to support. It's not his fault that he's dyslexic. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Sorry to hear your dyslexic, but you still deserve to be an admin. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support good user, no reason not to make him an admin. Good vandal fighter. Polonium 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support he beats my failed RfA record! Computerjoe's talk 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support as per the nominator. RFerreira 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. In response to the dyslexia-rationale opposes below, I don't see how dyslexia will reduce his ability to be an administrator in any way or form. Any dyslexic user can edit Wikipedia, and they can make a very good job of it, as has Benon. Each candidate must be able to communicate with other users, for example explaining blocks and protections. Benon can do this, no problem. Yes, there's the occasional spelling mistake or bad grammar but what does it matter in being an administrator? As long as he can be understood, which he can, I don't see the problem. — FireFox 21:12, 29 June '06
  27. Support why not? Seems alright for a dyslexic person. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Ixfd64 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong support it's not that big a deal and even stronger after reading the oppose aruments below. The editors/admins who put up a set of "their criteria" for adminship and post them on their userpages are just too proud for being the ones who can decide on something, and the whole thing resembles the familiar ego-masturbation far too much. Anyway is there any prevention for this tendency-to-egomasturbate effect in communities that are based on rules of being civil, kind to the others, and doing some voluntary work for the whole community? (repeating my argument from above) ackoz 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Strong support per all above reasons (except maybe ackoz!! <grin> My criteria are posted on my userpage [like anyone cares] and Benon more than meets mine. :) ) His tenacity and dedication, despite multiple rebuffs to his RfA's, convince me of his commitment to Wikipedia. :) Dlohcierekim 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. We cannot expect administrators to be absolutely perfect embodiments, in my opinion; if we do, our supply will rapidly dry up and die off. This individual has shown a committment to keeping Wikipedia an easier place to edit and work in, and he is aware of and is attempting to compensate for a disability which he cannot help that has an effect on an area of the proposed job he may not even be called upon to employ. I believe that he can be trusted with the administrator tools and that Wikipedia would be better off if Benon received the wiki-mop and bucket. — Mike • 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Vandal fighting bores me. We need more vandal fighters. With a modern set of scripts in your monobook.js you hardly have to ever type anything, just push buttons and pull on dropdowns. So I see dyslexia as little or no handicap to an admin who primarily wants to fight vandals. I'm surprised people make a big deal of this actually. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support *~Daniel~* 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, per Lar and FireFox. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. I agree with Lar; dyslexia is no reason to oppose the admin request. Hell, if people know kinds of things I have to deal with, they'd be surprised I even got this far. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support excellent vandal fighting, an adminship would give more tools to do so. American Patriot 1776 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support — The King of Kings 11:04 July 01 '06
  38. Support seems like a good editor and vandal fighter, can be trusted and will put the tools to good use --rogerd 12:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Weak support. This is an unusual case, as I normally expect substantial contributions to the encyclopedia from admin candidates. However, given the limitations the user has, it appears he's doing what he can to help, and doing a good job at it. I see no evidence he'll abuse the tools, and every indication is that the wiki will be better of when he has them without them. One important recommendation: Communication with vandals and other problem users is sometimes very important; please make sure to communicate clearly in these cases or seek assistance from another admin if necessary. -- SCZenz 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support Wow, this user isn't an admin? —Xyrael / 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support I admit I was on the fence, but the rationale behind a lot of the Oppose votes needs to be counter-balanced. TruthCrusader 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support will make good use of admin tools. --Alf melmac 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Uber-support - Iolakana|T 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Cleared Off you go to baggage claim to retrieve the admin tools. --Pilot|guy 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. — Jul. 2, '06 [14:07] <freak|talk>
  46. Support. Meets my criteria, seems unlikely to abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Thought-I'd-already-supported support. There's a difference between pining for authority and genuinely wanting to help the encyclopedia, and I see a strong demonstration of the latter. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - I held off voting because of concerns (already cited) regarding spelling/grammar issues as although I don't believe they impede effective sysopping, they could cause flare ups with confrontational vandals. After reading his gracious response and pledge to make an effort plus to use Spellbound I am fully confident in my support. There are a lot of tasks on an admins plate and often once mopped their vandalism fighting gets brushed aside ('cuse pun) by other administration tasks. Solid vandal fighting admins are in short supply. - Glen 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC) PS Sorry for long comment
  49. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - Benon is an extermely motivated and dedicated Wikipedian who has done NOTHING by help Wikipedia. It's really a shame that no one will give him the chance. I'm 100% convinced that Benon will help improve this project. --lightdarkness (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support as per nom. Where is right. We must support all experienced vandal fighters and give them their mops and blocking keys as needed!! Abcdefghijklm 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong support Seems to be not only well at handling his/her own conflicts, but also helpful in resolving the conflicts of others. Might be a good mediator. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support I don't think the time between his RfA's is that bad a thing. Let him have a mop already. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Per all above. ShaunES 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC).
  56. support he's really ok. pschemp | talk 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. He's come a long way. Jude (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We've been here before. AGAIN? This is becoming like Jaranda, only minus the leaving. Per last time (lack of true article edits), oppose. NSLE 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    BTW, the nomination is too much NOT about the candidate's worthiness as an admin, rather what the current problem is with Wikipedia. IMO, if you're going to put it that way, say how the candidate could solve things. NSLE 01:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    If benon was an administrator, he would be able to help improve the response time on AIV. I thought I said that, but I guess not. Sorry! -- Where 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Way too soon since RfA3. Seriously, give it 3 months. Also, nom reads like a press release from a campaign manager. We all know the score with vandalism. Deizio talk 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    It isn't benon's fault if I wrote a crappy nom though. -- Where 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong, it's a well written press release, from a well respected campaign manager. Nobody doubts this candidates intentions towards vandalism, but I think it would have reflected a lot better on them to accept a nom which addressed the concerns about the various things brought up in other RfA's and, surprise surprise, again here. It's pretty much a single-issue nomination, and with the fuss made recently about sweet FAs and the importance of article contribution in general, plus Benon's known spelling and grammar issues that isn't enough. Deizio talk 13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Each of us who's ever nom'ed someone has written our reasons therefor; yes, Where went overboard, but "well written press release, from a well respected campaign manager" implies that the user was somehow "hired" (or, at least, recruited). Without a diff to back that up, am I wrong to wonder where WP:AGF went? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- despite being the fourth nomination (the rest all self nominations) he still hasn't been here long enough, and seems a little overly eager to be an admin... --T-rex 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    His first edit was on 24 August 2005, 11 months isn't long enough!?--Andeh 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    He has very few edits before december, so 6 months isn't long enough --T-rex 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ah right, OK I see your point now.--Andeh 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, with that kind of spelling and grammar in the answers to the questions at the bottom, I just can't bring myself to support. One or two mistakes, fine, but not like this: un confterabley; I could help; particualrly; all sorts f articles; however I; meotrship; inclivil; dont; A quote ive shamelessley stealing; philospy; and countless others. —Mets501 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    You mean grammar. :P SushiGeek 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    He has indicated that he is dyslexic. ViridaeTalk 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    I am very sorry about his dyslexia, but remember, we still have to write an encyclopedia here, so I'm sorry, but I can't support. —Mets501 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Do keep in mind that this is about admin tools: deleting, protecting, blocking, et al. None of these involves perfect spelling and grammar (this is not Requests to Edit Mainspace, after all); only the ability to communicate is required, which faulty typing can somewhat hamper, but I can understand perfectly everything Benon is typing, so I don't believe this is an issue. TheProject 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Mets, Deiz -lethe talk + 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose It seems like too little time has passed since the last nomination since there had already been three in about 3.5 months (this makes four in five months). However, my main issue is in regards to (q) of my different standards: I'd expect that as a native speaker of English your comments and edits would be more gramatically correct. Communicating effectively is important as administrators are often considered the face of Wikipedia and as they must articulate clearly to a multitude of users. However, from your answers below, I see an unreasonable level of disregard for the mechanics of the English language. I don't expect you, or any administrator, to be the next Shakespeare, but I'd like to see greater care towards effective and gramatically correct writing. Perhaps I'll support you in October after you take my suggestions into account. joturner 02:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    He is dyslexic, cut the guy some slack will you. TruthCrusader 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Mets501 and Lethe. SushiGeek 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Where? NSLE 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Stupid mistake fixed. I honestly don't know what I was thinking...:P SushiGeek 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Who? - He's on first! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    This just made me roll over laughing... TheProject 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose too soon, strange nom too. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above. --Shizane 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Q2 answer. If one can't name article/contribution that he/she is particularly pleased then I don't think he/she have enough editing experience. --WinHunter (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I regard patience as a virtue to be held by admins. The candidate seems to be lacking it a lot. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Mild Oppose. I see that someone recommended a spell-checker to you; if you're in the habit of using it effectively next time you run, I'd be happy to support you. I quite liked the unusual style of the nom Where wrote for you, even if it wasn't perfectly executed. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I have no problem with the spelling issue, if a spellchecker is used. However, I prefer admins with more broad experience, not just vandal fighting. You have to have diverse contributions and participate in diverse communities in order to understand the nuances of Wikipedia, which I think it necessary for adminship. Expand your horizons and try again in 3-6 months. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per all above. --WillMak050389 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Browbeating the Rfa process with machine-gun noms doesn't demonstrate a constructive attitude. Waiting for a reasonable amount of time between Rfas means just that.—Perceval 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose. Benon4 has a nice high edit count, but if you delete out the very high user talk count (2214 or 46.5%) you are near my bare minimum for edits for admin candidates. Along with the other negatives mentioned above, I have to oppose. BlankVerse 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per NSLE, Mets501, and especially Deizio. -- Deville (Talk) 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak Oppose, I would like to see some more contributions in projects and activites other than just reverting vandalism, its also a bit too soon since the last RfA--TBCTaLk?!? 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Sorry but no. Per above. -- Миборовский 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose sorry. Per NSLE and Mets501. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Sorry no. Mostly per Tree Biting Conspiracy. I don't think contributors who do not focus on content should be ennobled. Grace Note 06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose — NSLE does this more justice that I could. Basically the nominations:content ratio is a bit off for my taste. Sorry. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose for reasons above. --kingboyk 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Last time I supported you. Your past RfA greeting is still on my talk page! But quick-fire RfAs are a big turn-off, a sure sign of desperation and/or hidden agenda. Fails Diablo Test anyway. No ifs and buts this time. Please come back next year. Anwar 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral. While those who have voted support and the nominator have good reasons to support, I agree with NSLE, Deiz, and T-rex. Roy A.A. 02:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral pending answers to additional questions. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
  2. Neutral. Definitely a good user, but some issues raised by the oppose camp prevent this being a support. -- Steel 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Looking for broader experiences to support. GChriss 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, leaning to support. An overall good vandal-whacker, but saying, "I don't really have any contributions that I would say I are particularly noteworthy" really gives me pause. I'm not asking you to write an FA from scratch; even getting several articles off Category:Articles that need to be wikified, or doing overall clean-up of a couple of articles is enough to satisfy my standards. That said, I don't think it is an issue that would make me oppose your request. Titoxd(?!?) 00:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username        Benon
Total edits     4761
Distinct pages edited   3290
Average edits/page      1.447
First edit      13:30, 24 August 2005
        
(main)  1519
Talk    97
User    423
User talk       2214
Image   7
Image talk      2
Template        55
Template talk   1
Help talk       1
Category        7
Wikipedia       425
Wikipedia talk  7
Portal  3
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: Firstly I would find the tools helpful for rc patrolling, I also catch and tag a large amount of speedy copyvios , being able to deal with them myself would help to keep pages off the congested csd pages, I would be able to help clear out speedy deletions as well as AIV.

Also the copyright problems page has at times in the past grown un comfortably large, and as an admin I could help to try and keep the backlog down, along with other general clean-up tasks.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I don't really have any contributions that I would say I are particularly noteworthy, I like to add little bits to all sorts f articles, and expand out some of the UK law stubs (an area I'm particularly knowledgeable in)
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: Yes my continued dealings with t-man have caused me some stress over the past 5 months or so, at one point the editor was almost banned by the arb com for 6 months, however I convinced them to peruse a program of mentorship. The user is certainly on the right path and hopefully will get there.
I also do some WP:AMA work, mostly informal advice via e-mails, and sometimes people can be incivil when they don't get things there way.
The way I deal with and continue to deal with wiki stress is to simply r ember to be calm civil and polite, communication sinking into a mud slinging match just does not do anything good.

A quote ive shamelessley stealing borrowing from Essjay is :-

If you dont believe that your edit is here to make Wikipedia better then dont press the save button
I believe that to be an excellent philospy to follow, and something ive always followed.

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 block the sockpuppets to prevent further abuse, the next thing to do is communicate with the user about the situation. Also a post an AN/I is warranted so other admin's can see what has happened and if nessasry take further action. A conseus of what action should be taken also be sought at AN/I
  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 i would think that given the situation laid out above, the RFArb would be rejected, I would continue to discuss with the parties and the blocking admin. Arbitration should be used as a last resort. I would probably post a comment as a 3rd party at the RFArb but i certianly wouldnt start a wheel war with the blocking admin because theres really no need. There is virtually no time on wikipedia where admin actions cant be discussed with the admin carrying them out. Assuming arbcom do reject the case i would try to get both parties to go through mediation, either through the mediation cabal, myself or the med com.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A Probably to have a way of dealing with AOL vandals without the massive collateral damage that currently goes on.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A When the username breaches the unsername policy (and unless its an obvious seasoned vandal with a username like Willy on wheels owns you) make sure any autoblock issued is removed, where I have un positively identifed an ip as an open proxy and hardcore vandalism only accounts.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions 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 at this point i would probably confer with a more experinced admin, I would also consider extending the AfD to make the consensus clearer. By extending it more input can be given which can help to clarify the consensus.
  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
  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 If im feeling under stress with something on wikipedia i have learn't the best stratgey for me is to go do something else for a while, and then come back to situation, a little reflection on what your about to do often helps to remove stress from the situation.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A Mostly because id like to stop bugging other admins, im sure jude shanel firefox etc are sick of me bugging them on pm for blocks and the like. Being an admin isnt a big deal to me though, an admin simply carries out the will of the community.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A Admin's hold a very much techinical position, they have a few extra buttons/functions that should be used to improve Wikipedia and carry out the will of the community, they shouldnt be a special group in the community or have more say than regular wikipedians.

Q: Will you use spell check in the future?

A:: If somone can recommend a good firefox spell checker then I dont see why not, up until now the ones I have found have been rather poor.

someone pointed out spellbound to me and i have to say it looks good and ill continue using it

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

My greatest frustration's stem mostly from people who like to game the system or "wiki lawyer". It serves to breed mistrust from fellow editors and that's not constructive in building Wikipedia.


Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important (eg. Mainspace edits, edit summary use etc.)?

I think that edit summary usage is important, it can be frustrating to have to load diff's to check see what's changed and find it was only a minor spelling correction, otherwise I believe that edit counts are evil, it places value on how many times you can press the save button rather than how valuable someone is to Wikipedia.



Q: Lastly, what is your largest wiki-weakness? This is your view and doesn't need to be based on the comments placed by oppose or neutral voters.

My largest weakness would probably have to be my dyslexia, it can make editing hard because I'm not sure how something should be spelt and it makes communication more difficult, however now someone has pointed out a good spell checker to use I'm hoping that's improving.

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.