Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ben Arnold

Ben Arnold
[ Vote here] (7/14/7) ending 02:48 7 September 2005 (UTC) I am nominating myself to be an admin because I have found myself moving into a space where I am monitoring pages for vandalism and giving assistance to new users. It seems like the natural next step to actually become an admin. I have only 920-odd edits, but they are spread reasonably evenly over the last 18 months or so. Special considerations: Ben Arnold 02:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I live in New Zealand. That gives me a timezone advantage (I can revert vandalism when those in the U.K. and North America are asleep).
 * I have a dream that one day, admins will not be judged on their geographical locations, but on the quality of their content. Or something like that... --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have installed and run a MediaWiki at my workplace, so I'm familiar with the software &mdash; and I'm a programmer so I'm familiar with software in general.
 * I worked with a group of users to developing articles about New Zealand places. I created a WikiProject for the purpose (although it's fallen into disuse). There is now a message board for New Zealand Wikipedians and I intend to get re-involved under that banner.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept ;) Ben Arnold 02:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support, very good edit history, will support wikipedia's NPOV. --Vizcarra 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Andre ( talk ) 18:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good candadite, great edit summaries. Too many with editcountitis around here Sad.gif Ryan Norton T 22:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, good editor, understands NPOV, head seems firmly screwed to neck.-gadfium 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Pcb21| Pete 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, I like his idea of exploiting the time zone advantage to revert vandalism. I will support again if his 'inexperience' makes the community withhold consensus now. Uncle Ed 14:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support how 18 months is not enough experience is beyond me. Editcountitis are bad. Grue  16:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, excellent history, but not enough edits for me, otherwise, try again after 1,500 edits and I'll support.--MONGO 03:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't care about your edit count as a whole, but your lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace indicates a lack of experience in terms of RFA voting, VfDs, etc. I'll gladly support in a few more months.  Acetic Acid  ( talk ) 03:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. You've got only a few Wikipedia namespace edits, so you might not be familiar enough with policies and practices yet to be an admin. The overall edit count is not a problem in my opinion, but you need to show that you're familiar with Wikipedia's structure to get votes here. Other than that, you sound like a good contributor, and I'll definitely support after a few more months and, say, 150 Wikipedia namespace edits. - ulayiti  (talk)  16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose&mdash; 900 edits in 17 months is a bit few. Needs to be more consistent with edit summaries. Lastly, shows limited grasp of Wiki policy if he calls this edit 'reverting vandalsim'. Seem like a consistent editor nontheless; come back in a few months and youll have my full support.  Journalist  C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 5) *It was an error that he corrected himself, just a few minutes later. See . --Durin 18:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *An unavoidable risk in using the normal user "revert" technique, compounded by my work connection running slowly that day. Ben Arnold 21:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I'm not too worried about where you edit (Wiki namespace or just article space), but I am worried about the number. Even 1,000 over 18 months isn't that much. I'd like to see an admin have more than 50 edits a month. That isn't too much more than one edit a day, on average. Perhaps later I could support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. It's great to have editors that are passionate about certain topics, but I'm not sure that the narrow focus on New Zealand-related articles is grounds for the admin mop.  In addition, I would prefer to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace before I would feel comfortable supporting.  --Alan Au 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) *I think the New Zealand-related articles need attention, but my interest has been broader than that, and will continue to be so. Ben Arnold 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Will support in one month. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose not enough edits. freestylefrappe 18:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Too new. CDThieme 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Looks like a good editor, but what's wrong with waiting a bit? I think there is nothing wrong with maintaining that admins should be more experienced. Keep editing as you have and adminship will come in time. Jonathunder 17:20, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
 * 15) "edit-countitis" tempered with judgement is not a vice. While you shouldn't promote somebody purely based on an impressive edit count, there is nothing wrong with telling a good user to keep editing for a little while before re-applying. I will wholeheartedly support after another month or so of steady editing. dab (&#5839;) 12:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) oppose not enough experience. freestylefrappe 03:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose per MONGO, Derktar 00:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC).

Neutral
 * 1) I'd love to support another kiwi for admin, but 920 edits is just a wee bit too few. Once you've racked up another few hundred there should be no problem, since that is the only reason I'm stalling. Grutness...  wha?  03:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral; I agree with Grutness. Good edit history, but you need a bit more edits, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. Jaxl | talk 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I've similar sentiments to Grutness.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Not enough edits. BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-09-3 04:03
 * 5) Neutral to anyone who I don't know. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Hard to effectively judge this user's proficiency with the low edit count, especially regarding janitorial tasks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Would suggest user go on RC patrol to prove that he can be effective and reverting vandalism =) Would support with another couple hundred edits. Sasquatch &#35762; &#30475;  02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so it surprises me that my total edits are considered low. Perhaps I listen more and talk less than other Wikipedians who become admins. Perhaps I haven't done enough of the mass editing that involves making the same change to a lot of articles. Regardless I think I've failed to grasp the importance of a large edit count. I am someone who has been involved in Wikipedia continuously for 18 months, with an accelerating edit count over that time, so you can assume I'm going to be around for the long term. I have a good sense of what Wikipedia's about. I have proved myself trustworthy. And I'm volunteering to help out.

Maybe it comes down to whether being an Admin is being someone you can trust who is lending a hand in a volunteer capacity, where it's useful to have all hands on deck &mdash; or whether Adminship is a club for people who have met an edit target.

Ben Arnold 23:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly concur with all of this. Classic example of where editcountitis is harmful. Hopefully enough other editors will see this too. Pcb21| Pete 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Btw, bot spending too much time in the Wikipedia: namespace is a good thing in my opinion. Pcb21| Pete 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think its because you spend a "reasonable" amount of time each day here... many editors (like meself) spend like 10 hours a day or more here which leads to large edit counts... add in artificial inflation (VfD, catagorization etc.) and you've got more edit counts than one really should have Ryan Norton T 03:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to those who supported my application. It's been quite an illuminating experience. One person commented that they'd like to see me help out with patrolling for vandalism in the recent changes. I'd like to do that but I find the reverting process (as a normal user) too awkward. Of course I revert vandalism when I encounter it on a day-to-day basis. I guess it's these kinds of tasks &mdash; and more Wikipedia namespace involvement &mdash; I felt I was offering to sign up for.

Anyway, barring a last-minute deluge of support it looks like the consensus is that I should not become an admin. I must admit I hadn't appreciated it would be that hard. I was only about 80 edits short of the recommended number for applying, but I had 3–6 times the recommended tenure in terms of months.

Many have suggested I reapply later. I may do. As I've already been here for 18 months I don't think I can reasonably reapply until 2007, and that's too far ahead to plan.

You have lost the opportunity to have someone commit themselves to administration tasks who has demonstrated responsiblity and long-term service to Wikipedia. I think you've made a bad decision.

Ben Arnold 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. As an admin I mainly see myself keeping an eye on the growing problem of vandalism in the New Zealand arena, and other pages I have an interest in. It would also be useful to modify the "in the news section" page when events of global interest happen, particular things in New Zealand. I've written for "in the news" twice, when New Zealand passed Civil Unions and when former Prime Minister David Lange died.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My most recent new article contribution is Realm of New Zealand, although New Zealand order of precedence made it to the new articles section on the Main Page. I guess ironically I get a sense of pride every time I go back to something I wrote and find that other people have reworded it to make it read better or developed it into something more thorough.
 * 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 edit Wikipedia to relax, so I don't let myself take arguments personally. The one time I got quite heated about a topic I voluntarily withdrew before I let it get me too angry (kilobyte). I would be even more careful about that as an admin. After all, I use my real name as my username and edit histories last forever!