Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon6

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.

Contents

[edit] Benon

Voice your opinion (12/17/13); Ended 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Benon (talk · contribs)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self nom; I acceptBenon 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

withdrawn Benon 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, here I am again after 5 other attempts (which can be seen here: [1]), I won't beat around the bush. I'm a very specific task person and plan to be a specifically focused admin. The main areas I participate in are speedy deletions and rc patrol. I very rarely participate in xfd, and as an admin would likely not participate. I ask for adminship for two reasons; the CSD and AIV backlogs. If you have any further questions please feel free to post them here or on my talk page. I also have a working e-mail and a strong password :).

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly only rc patrol and speedy deletions. I am definitely a Wikignome; I sit in the background with a set of popups and happily revert away knowing I'm helping Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I dont really think i have any "best" contributions; unlike some editors, I don't have lots of featured articles or the like, but what I do have is a lot of reverts, and a ton of speedy deletion edits, all of which I'd like to think helped protect Wikipedia from the ever growing vandalism problem.
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 think most editors have been in a conflict, barring trolls. If anyone comes to my talk page or wishes to complain about me or suggest I improve something, I will read and listen even if I don't agree with it. I will always respond calmly after taking a minute or two to think up a nice response representing my point of view on the issue. If I am annoyed for some reason, I will go and do something else and come back later when I can make a calm response. Getting annoyed and making personal attacks does nothing to foster community relations which in turn slowly damages our ultimate goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs)
4. There is a gap in your edits between the time of your last RfA and about a week ago. Why is this?
A: Mainly because at the time i have been without a laptop except my work one, which im not allowed to edit wikipedia on (it manager thinks theres a security risk), i have however still been around just not able to edit
Optional question from dgies
5. Under what circumstances can a user be blocked for removing warnings from their user talk page?
A: Discussion with the user in question is always preferable to a block, and blocking somone for removing warnings from there talk page wouldnt have an affect anyway as blocked users can still edit there talk pages. Protection or semi protection becomes appropriate when the user is constantly despite repeated warnings blanking there talk page to remove warnings, usually in the hope they can avoid getting blocked for peristant vandalism.
Optional two-part question from Lanky
6. Under what circumstances would you ignore a rule? How do you feel WP:IAR interacts with the policy regarding biographies of living persons?
A:
Optional question from Hipocrite
7. If you saw an article that did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, but was undoubtedly and unquestionably harmful to the encyclopedia, would you delete it?
A:

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Benon before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support. We could use some help with backlogs. A long time ago, benon also helped me out with the mentorship of a user. While the mentorship failed, it demonstrated to me that he can keep a cool head when dealing with difficult users. I've never seen him insult or put down another user, and he's been here long enough that he knows his way around.--§hanel 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. I trust Benon not to misuse the admin tools and that's all there is to it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. support per Picaroon. JoshuaZ 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Benon is a very engaging Wikipedian who has clearly shown a strong desire to further help the project by helping out with some of the backlogs. I've no reservations that he'll act in anything but the best interests of the English Wikipedia and by extension, the Wikimedia Foundation. Good luck! gaillimhConas tá tú? 01:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. So he only has a few things he'll do. If he's gonna be good at it then I say let's support already.--Wizardman 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - This is not an ideal candidate, but I checked a bunch of their WP:AIV reports and they were all actionable. If they say they want to fight vandals that's good enough for me. —dgiestc 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral support. It probably won't happen this time around, but I believe his heart is in the right place. RFerreira 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - With respect, I really don't understand the opposers' reasoning. I can testify that the CSD backlog, which he promises to help with, is massive. I really don't care about previous failed attempts, lack of article-writing, etc. He clearly knows what he's doing with speedy deletion, which is the area in which more admins are most needed. So I say give him the tools. (His edit count, at 5242, is also fairly impressive, and higher than I had when I passed RfA.) Walton Need some help? 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support for two reasons: (i) Nothing makes me assume he'd inadvertently or intentionally misuse the tools, and (ii) out of spite against the appalling arrogance displayed in some oppose !!votes. Is filing any number of RfAs not allowed? So who knows policy better again? If you're unable or unwilling to oppose for the right reasons, assuming there are any, you may always choose to abstain. —AldeBaer 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    There are no right/wrong reasons for opposing the user. There are, of course, reasons that are complete bollocks and those are usually contested or not considered by closing bureaucrats. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    A reason that is bollocks is the very definition of a wrong reason, I just prefer calling it the latter. Might as well say better/worse, still the same thing. —AldeBaer 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  10.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. I thought edit counts were apparently not important in RfAs. Is that wrong?--U. S. A. 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you read the objections clearly, you would realize that it's about this user's questionable activity, not his edit count. Aquarius • Talk 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support We could always use a reverter and Rc'r as an admin. --St.daniel Talk 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I just can't see how this user has grown or learned from any of his last RfAs. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. RfA #6? Not getting the message. The candidate had definite maturity issues. Answer to Q2 is not helping either. -- Y not? 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am puzzled by what you mean by "maturity issues", as far as i am aware i tend to act rationally and calmly, is there a specific diff that your concerned about. Simply having many RFA's would not to me indicate someones maturity, thanks Benon 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that a lot of the previous RfAs went down for being to soon after the previous one, so they waited ~7 months for this one. I'd call that "getting the message". —dgiestc 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Partial adminship is a bad idea. ➪HiDrNick! 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Could you clarify what you mean? -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Usually when people tell RfA candidates to wait a few months after submitting another RfA, they are under the assumption that the user will continue to edit at their same previous pace. As far as a I can see, Benon's made around 250 edits since his last RfA, and I don't see how you can really gain much experience with such a small number of edits, especially since you've been inactive in the past few months, average <1 edit a day. In particular, the last RfA brought up some concerns about the lack of encyclopedic writing and discussion-style edits on talk pages. I have always considered a user's discussion skills to be a good indicator of how they can handle conflicts on articles that they will undoubtedly have to mediate as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dude, you just came back... a few things have changed since then, so I'd say it would be better to re-familiarize yourself with policies to deal with new features, such as cascading protection. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Titoxd the fact i havent edited reguarly dosent mean i havent been keeping in touch with wikipedia, the lack of a personal laptop has prevented that but ive still been around, and i am aware of how cascading protection etc works Benon 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but I'm still uncomfortable. Heck, when I go away for a couple of days, I need to catch up... an extended period of time makes me pause. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - 7 months and as Nishkid said 250 edits is not enough since the last RfA. There were a lot of comments in your previous RfA about 5 RfA's in one year. I fully understand your position with regards to work and computer, but with only ~35 edits per month, I can't see how you will be able to effectivly contribute to the project as an admin. Sorry Khukri 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above, especially Nishkid64. Honestly, if you haven't got it together after 5 failed RFAs, you're not fit to be an administrator. Sean William 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is fair to deny someone's RfA simply because they had a lot of failed ones. Because someone was overeager about applying in the past doesn't justify permanently denying them adminship. —dgiestc 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right. However, my justification for opposing is the same as Nishkid64's. I'm not opposing just for that reason. Sean William 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, per Nishkid. Daniel Bryant 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Sorry Benon, but only time has passed since your last Rfa. You seem to want to be an admin very badly, and I can sympathize with someone wanting something quite badly. But you just haven't expanded your horizons with Wikipedia. You haven't edited much as of late, nor have you really intrigued me with your answers to the questions above. If you truly want to become and admin, find a coach, editeditedit, prove to the community you want to be an admin and not just expect it, and then try again. I do wish you luck, and I do hope you try and improve because you obviously have heart! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmlk17 (talk • Didn't sign correctly...Jmlk17 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC) contribs) 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Not an active contributor for most of this year. Made only 4 edits in April, 3 in March, 45 in February, 12 in January, and 4 in both November and December. Contrubutions since the last failed RFA are insufficient to assess whether anything has changed. Singopo 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Has insufficiently addressed the objections from the previous five RFAs. >Radiant< 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I'm sorry but I cannot support. While I don't have a problem with specialists, I would think there should be some editorial skills demonstrated by a candidate. Am I correct that you last editorial work was November? Maybe I missed some but I think that's correct. JodyB talk 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. This user has only 237 edits so far this year, and was much active last year compared to the present. The activities this user mentions in question one can easially be done without the sysop tools. If the user can be more active, and show a need for the tools, and provide answers that displays this, I would be happy to support. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Candidate needs to have more consistancy. Also, the 6th RfA part concerns me greatly. Captain panda 13:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Their first 5 RfAs failed largely because they were premature or too soon after the previous one. They now have >5000 edits, 16 months on WP, and 7 months since the previous RfA. —dgiestc 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose The last time I checked, Wikipedia was primarily about writing an encyclopedia. Just on the answers the editor has given above, I have doubts as to whether their time on Wikipedia has actually been used primarily to write an encyclopedia. Duke of Whitstable 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Opposeper Nishkid64 and Singopo. I would support a vandalfighting editor, but you need to have more time between your next RFA.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Just a note, it's been 7 months since the last one. What's the interval you have in mind? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Edit count is up, but maturity is not. Therefore, I cannot approve. TML 09:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral His activity seems questionable, but it doesn't look too bad. A•N•N•A hi! 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per lack of activity in article editing and admin-related tasks between this and the last RfA. The number of RfAs that an editor undergoes isn't necessarily a reason to oppose them. Participation in the project is the equivocal measure. (aeropagitica) 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - frankly, I'm concerned about seeing any development b/w this and the last RFA. In addition, and I know it's my own personal bias, I look at communication skills as a huge part of the skill set of a great admin, and I'm seeing too many spelling/word choice errors in this candidates statements. Their/There/They're for instance. Communication is critical for a great admin. That said, I also don't see any glaring issues - at least not any that are glaring enough to send me to oppose. Philippe 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Where your vandalfighting and corresponding with users is excellent, I still feel I must be neutral in this one. I have nothing against you not wanting to contribute to the mainspace- as long as you're doing behind the scenes stuff, like vandalfighting, which you are, but I'd at least like to see you around XFD. You see, you mention that you want the admin tools to help cut down the CSD backlog- however, I have no evidence that you know the deletion policy well enough to do this. Also, I think being relatively inactive since your last RFA- I know you've had limited access, but still- is probably not a good idea, as it doesn't show that you've improved that much as an editor. Definitely, you're a good editor, but perhaps a bit more variety in your work, and some more experience in areas that require more policy knowledge and I'll support your next RFA. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Your contributions make it fairly evident that you just came back a few days ago, did some recent changes patrolling, and thought that might be enough to pass RfA this time. Your heart is in the right place, as RFerreira says... But adminship isn't everything. Roam Wikipedia! See the sights! There's plenty to do here, and adminship will fall into place eventually if you just take it easy and engage in a wide variety of activities that suit you over a reasonably long period of time. Heck, I'd write your nomination. Grandmasterka 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I'm going to try to avoid a pile on, It would be nice to see some other work other than vandalism reverting (dont get me wrong, your work is great), good work with WP:AIV, however I would if possible try to become a little more active. I also noticed you have not answered the (optical) questions, maybe you should but they are optical so you do not have too.The Sunshine Man 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, Although overall I like the candidate, I have a few problems. First of all the fact that he has had five other RFAs, is a bit disconcerting. Secondly, not counting this month, from November to April he racked in a total of 72 edits. Personally, if he would get in another 1000 edits, I would support.
    --Random Say it here! 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - Benon, I would completely support your being an admin, but your edit count history suggests that you've dropped out in your contributions somewhat, a fact that doesn't support a claim to want to help with CSD and RC, since those activities generally require a consistent rate of vandalism reversion and user talk warnings outside of admin work - a rate generally above 60 edits/month. I would have supported you in early-mid 2006: it is clear that you were very active in the area during that time. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, simply not enough edits in recent months. --Phoenix 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - I don't think you would abuse the admin tools and I am glad that you answered the questions honestly. However, I am not confident enough to support as I do not think the issues from previous RfA's have been fully addressed; and I think you need to get fully back into Wikipedia before becoming an admin. Camaron1 | Chris 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral: User's editing isn't very consistent. While user has plenty of experience the consistency is an issue. I am not too impressed with the answers to the questions either and I don't feel all the things brought up in previous RfAs have been dealt with, I'd say a good start. I would suggest addressing all issues before having a future RfA, it almost makes it look like you're trying to rush. However this user's edit summary usage is excellent and I'd say keep that up.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral: I think that while you're a good guy, you have shown small lapses in maturity, and you're too eager for the mop. Instead of just disappearing/rarely editing after each RfA, throw yourself in, whack the vandals, use the wrong policies, get charged double, and end up kissing complete strangers and make a few mistakes that you can learn from, and you'll have a better chance than ever at getting the mop. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Neutral, lacks of edits after last RFA and still needs to address some of his current issues. You need to be active again to become and admin. Actually, I would like to support you, but I can't sadly. Terence 06:01, 12 May 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.