Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/benon

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 (19/20/17) ended 01:56 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Benon (talk · contribs) – self nomination, i have been on wikipedia for about 2 months as a registerd editor (and sevral months as various anons, i didnt use my username because i had forgotten id even made it!) and in that time have become a massive wiki - addict, i mainly vandal whack, as an ex-anon who vandalised (note this was over a year ago) i feel i know exactly what kind of behaviour is vandalism and what is a new editors test.

I am happy to answer any follow-up questions you have, post them here or on my talk page and i will respond when asap

please note i am dyslexic so my spelling isnt 100% spot-on, just thought id mention that. extra note:- i thank my oppose voters so far for providing constructive critisim, it is much appriciated :)

follow up note, there is some supected sock-puppetry going on here, probably by the same person whos doing this [1]

Candidate, self-nomination: Benon 01:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Don't see why not. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not to rag on RexNL, but he was made an admin even though almost all of his activity was within 1 month, so I don't see why benon couldn't be one then. I know this RfA probably won't pass (sorry benon), but I will vote support to fill in this space.:p Give him a few months and he'll be a shoe-in --Shanel 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Wants to know what shoe in means :s Benon 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Alright alright I mean "shoo-in" :P--Shanel 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - A bit short-tenured, but great vandal fighter who never fails to warn our new/anonymous friends. Reasonable contributions in the Project space as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support We need admins of all kinds. John Reid 06:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools, 1 month is enough experiance and everything can be learned by being an admin anyways. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    just a note this username has been very active for 2 months ;-) Benon 07:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dispite the short time under his username, great vandal fighter and a nice person. Support. — FireFox • T • 09:40, 29 January 2006
  7. Support - extremely unlikely to abuse admin tools. Latinus 13:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, I don't think a vandal would edit at the pace of 1500 per month and waste all that time during that month to abuse his admin powers. Croat Canuck 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, especially for "Responses to questions", "Your talk page", "Mistakes/Errors in judgment" on my RfA criteria. Also for good use of warning templates on vandal pages, and passes the ultimate questions- will this user do harm as an admin? No. Will this user do good as an admin? Looks like it :) If this RfA fails please continue the good work and try again in a couple of months or so. Petros471 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Super-duper support: This user is a committed vandal fighter. Some point out that s/he may need more experience. However, he has proven to be trustworthy and has frequently had to ask admins to ban people. We might as well facilitate the process and give him a mop. Where (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support An excellent vandal fighter! Don't let losing this RfA (which I hope doesn't happen) put you down - you can do it! --M@thwiz2020 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak support Benon does a good job of RC patrolling but some times Benon's conduct can be a bit immature--Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    :-O :-O :-O ... no comments :) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, likely to do more good than harm. Deserves a chance. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 08:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, User has demonstrated good faith in time here. If the user can be trusted in 4 months time, the user can be trusted now. Adminship is no big deal. Hiding talk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support see rational.--Edivorce 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support All in 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support I believe benon will become a valued administrator, helping to mop the places others don't like. --Alf melmac 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support This user has been on both sides both as a vandal and as a dedicated user he will be a asset in restoring pages and blocking punks. [[User:Mjal 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]

Oppose

  1. Oppose for now, good user but too little time, all activity in the last few weeks also, try again in a few months and your a shoo-in :) --Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose I sorry, but 1,600 edits is not enough, besides 1,200 were in this month alone. His lack of inactivity is a problem. A good contributor other than that. Will support if you reapply in 3-4 months. — Moe ε 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think you mean "lack of activity" ;)--Shanel 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Darn your right, lack of inactivity, lol. Sorry, I did mean activity. — Moe ε 04:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    i count almost 1800 [2]Benon 08:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    When I made my vote you had only 1600 ;-) — Moe ε 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not enough experience as of yet. The vandal fighting and high usage of edit summaries is commendable, but I'd really like to see an absolute minimum of 3 months of solid experience before adminship. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    just a note this username has been very active for 2 months ;-)
  4. Oppose. I think more time should pass before such a position is considered. --Buchanan-Hermit 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above needs more time. --pgk(talk) 09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - too soon, too soon. Staffelde 13:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose – too new, I'm afraid. You appear to be a good candidate, so I'll happily consider you in another 4 months at least.--cj | talk 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I want to see if you can keep up your high edit count starting with February. You had a total of 10 edits before December. So, see you in a month or two. Kusonaga 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, started serious editing on 11th December and that's just not long enough to have seen things that happen and how to handle them and to have demonstrated thoroughly how you will handle the wide range of things that will come your way as an admin. Try again later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 January 2006
  10. Per all above, too soon. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Sorry, two months of activity is not enough time. Do stick around though, you seem to be a good user. P.S. I admire your edit summary usage :-).--Alhutch 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose If you are serious about this, maybe you should have spell checked your nomination. Fthepostingquota 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    note to closing bureacrat, this user has under 100 edits at the time of checking and may be a suspected sock puppet--Benon 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Nothing personal, but I do oppose nominations of editors this new, as some things are only learned and seen over time. Suggest trying again in a few months. Jonathunder 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Waay too new, and I though my 4 months before RfA was pushing it.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. sry, just don't think it's time—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.163.52 (talk • contribs)
    sorry anonos dont get a vote on rfas
  14. Oppose: ten months too few. Avriette 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. for now, if user shows regular activity and participation on current account, then he'll be a shoo-in for his next RFA. --Madchester 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Nay more experience needed User:Ncrown23334
    note to bueracrat this user has 15 edits, a good size on the rfa and may be a sockpupprt
  17. Oppose. not been around long enoughPschemp | Talk 04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    'Oppose.: 2 months doesn't seem like enough time for me, maybe come back and try again in 4 months whilst still being an active part of wiki.--User:AndyPandy1337
    note to buercrat this user has no contribution and may be a sock puppet
  18. Weak oppose, as there is no way that you can learn about all the policies in Wikipedia in such a small sort of time, but most importantly, I try to look for important contributions to the article namespace. Most of your edits are vandalism reversion, which is ok, but I'd really like to see some more content. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing Bureaucrat: this user has about 11,000 edits and is not a sockpuppet. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    hahaha titoxd i knowyour not a sockpuppet :p
  19. Oppose. Too soon. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Your vandal fighting is great work but you seem to make mistakes, so I wouldn't want to equip you with a rollback button just yet. Maybe in a few months I can get a clearer picture of your editing. Ashibaka tock 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Benon, you know I love ya, but I think it's really too soon for you. You're great with reverting vandalism, but that's all I've seen you do these past couple weeks. RFR would be perfect for you, but I don't feel Adminship is right for you, just yet. --lightdarkness 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Benon has been editing heavily for a while, but I don't think you're ready yet. Keep up the good work, and in a few months, please try again. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral You've been registered for a bit, but have really just started editing regularly. Be sure to look in to and work on the Project areas, as well as articles. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Looks otherwise OK but has been really active for too little time. JIP | Talk 08:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. It will be better if you contribute more for longer time.--Jusjih 10:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Not sure yet. --King of All the Franks 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - sorry mate but I think another month or so would do you the world of good. --Celestianpower háblame 14:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. While I feel that "number of months" is just another form of editcountitis, the painful truth is that Wikipedia has A LOT of policies, and to even get acquainted with half of them, you need more than a month and a half. I wish this user the best of luck and hope they will come back in late March if they keep up this level of commitment. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    P.S.- Great job on the number of user talk edits! :o)
  9. Neutral. You have shown yourself to be a dedicated vandal fighter. However, being an admin is more than just fighting vandals. I suggest you read up on what admins do (such as at the Administrators' reading list and maybe check out some of the conversation at WP:AN and WP:ANI. --Deathphoenix 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    i have been on lurking on he AN but i don use the Ani much because im on irc where i can get an admin to del with the problem faster
  10. Neutral. I don't plan to oppose this user, but I feel that he needs to take more care over what can and cannot be speedy deleted before given the chance to play with the delete buttons himself (e.g. Wmsc). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    thanks for the advice, i alredy had shanel slap my wirst for that and send me off to read the deletion policy pages before tagging enaything else.Benon 13:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Benon, love ya, man, but I can't support you. I personally would be willing to do it after another month. Mo0[talk] 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral until more experienced, and use correct spelling/grammer, please —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 23:26Z
  13. Neutral. Has handled this RfA well, despite some obvious sockpuppetry. (changed vote from: Oppose. Only 23 edits before December 19th. Active for less than a month and a half. More time please, looks good for the future.) NoSeptember talk 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral, its really too soon. Really needs more experience. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Too soon. Patience, my young padawan. I do admire your willingness to admit you were once a vandal, though. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Neutral maybe next time and I agree with Quadell about admitting that you were once a vandal. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Neutral definitely on the right track so far - another month or two and you can count on some enthusiastic support from this corner. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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. My main activity would be rc patrol, it can be really frustrating to be vandal whacking and having bout a vandal up to a {{test4}} warning to the have to wait for an admin on irc to block them whilst they continue to vandalise.

I also like to be someone who helps new editors feel welcome, a simple ten second {{welcome}} placed on the talk page, and praise of good eits makes a new editor hopefully feel like there welcome at wikipedia.

Also ensuring that articles tagged with a speedy tag are delt with well sppedily, sometimes ive found articles tagged a long time ago because admins simply havent got around to deleting yet.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particuly proud of welcoming new editors,

i am also proud of the mediation i did here (which sadly had to go onto arbitration, after the parties went back to attacking eachother) [3]

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.I dont lose my cool even when provoked by pepole personally attacking me, in fact i even have a cool as a cucumber award. i think this link helps to show it again [4]

aribtration here [5]

If someone really tries to provoke me i dont rise to it, ill go and do some editing (on a diffrent subject) have a cup of tea etc then respond to ensure im not going to make a retailory remark, because thats just lowering yourself to there level.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A.Test 3 and 4 are only apropriate after either a {{bv}} or {{test2}} has been issued to someone, i will use the test template series when it a new editors testing, like blanking a section, add hi mum etc and a bv when a page is replaced with offesie pictures profanity sneaky vandalism or if its linkspam the {{spam}} series.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A.Assuming were talking outdie the exceptions in he policy, then i would start up a disccusion with the user via there talk page whilst watching them, if they continue to do it i would probably be inclined to block them becaus as i understnd the policy it's the spririt of the rule that matters the most, but of course i wold only do this if a disccusion about there behaviour proved fruitless, because after all they may not even be aware there doingsomethng wrong!
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.When the article is obviously un-notable like my my freinnd bernie then that is an obivous case for immedate speedy deletion. For an article that maybe notable i would use a search engine like google to see if the person was notable anywhere else if not speedy. If im still unure Id porbably ask another admin thorugh irc etc (i alredy do this) and if not sure opt for afd insted because it takes community conseus into account rather than your own personal view. Also [6] provides a list of usfel guidelines.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A.I try to think if i where pushing this pov id wirte it like this and if i was pushing that pov id write it like this and then write content that balanced both arguments.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A.One of my greatest frustrations are persitant vandals, who are difficult to stop becase there on aol or a dynamic ip etc.
9. Referring to your comment about you being a former vandal- thinking back to your time as a vandal, what made you do it, what motivated you? Now, why do you contribute productively? Why did you change? --Petros471 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
A.Wow thats thinking quite far back, i guess i thought it was funny adding hudge amounts of swear words being inserted as a "test" or blanking a page . However i think what turned it round for me is when i started using wikipedia as a source, the site had all the info i needed without advertisments, and i thought why am i trying to destroy something that's really usfel to me and (probably) millons of other pepole and i could return the favour by adding content id found because it wasnt here so it was there for the next person.
10. Related to the above, do you feel you have made any other mistakes at all while editing Wikipedia (apart from the above). If so how have you handled them? Also what would you do if a user disagreed with something you do as an admin? --Petros471 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
A.Of course ive made mistakes whilst editing, im sure every editor has because were not machines! However im happy to admit when im wrong and take the advice of other, and appricate it like here [7][8]

if im unsure the best thing is to ask another wiser editor, something i do reguarly over irc.

As an admin if someone diagreed with what i did then the first thing is to find out why and list to there side of the argument, if there's a genuine reason and ive made a mistke ill fix it, if im unsure ill ask another admin(s) for a review of my actions. After all Wikipedia is a constant learning experince.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.