Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ben W Bell


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Ben W Bell
Final (51/1/2) ended 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

– Ben has been editing Wikipedia since 4 June 2004. Since that time he's contributed on many subjects, most notably his native Northern Ireland (a subject which can arouse considerable emotion and unpleasantness among editors), and has also spent a great deal of time on anti-vandalism patrols and other vital tasks, such as adding missing country names to articles. He has attempted to put across an NPOV, no matter what his personal opinions may be, has always been happy to talk and accept compromise, and has never resorted to the sort of edit warring and name calling that can occur on some of the more sensitive articles. He is a tireless reverter and pursuer of vandals. I believe he would use administrator's rights efficiently and fairly and would be an asset to the pool of administrators on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I access this nomination for adminship. Many thanks. Ben W Bell   talk  14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Of course! -- Necrothesp 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Well, despite the fact that the candidate decided to "access" the nomination, support anyway. (grin)  Radio Kirk   talk to me  16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems to be extremely friendly, and dedicated to reverting vandalism. I think he will also open up to other admin duties. Yanksox 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm confident he'll serve Wikipedia well as an admin. To be more succinct, per above :-) SoLando (Talk) 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support It is time to give him the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No reason not to -- Mahoga ny 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I'll access support - looks good to me and can really use the tools -- Tawker 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I see no reason to oppose this RFA. Anonymous  _anonymous_  Have a Nice Day  17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Looks good; per Tawker. Voice -of- All Talk 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Looks good, meets my standards, per Tawker. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I cannot add much that has not already been said, he will use the tools well. Rje 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Tawker.  Th e   Gerg  23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support ForestH2
 * 14) Support Well-rounded edits, acceptable total edits, all around good evidence for fruitful adminship NorseOdin 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. User talk page shows a gift for being able to deal with upset users and bring them to a calm, rational discussion.  That's a good quality for adminship.  --Elkman 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support The E-mail is enabled, the rest seems good abakharev 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support changed from neutral with activation of email. --Chaser (T) 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Low count in wikipedia namespace, however appears to be a knowledgable editor. DarthVad e r 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support – now he enabled his email – Gurch 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Looks good. -- Andy123 candy?  10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Changed to support after activated Wikipedia email. FloNight   talk  11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, cannot support at this time. Wikipedia email not activated. Will consider changing if activates email and checksout otherwise. FloNight   talk  20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good committed user, impressed over his work on Northern Ireland page. --Wisd e n17 12:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Jusjih 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Good responses to questions below. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, per above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support' per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support No problems here. A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangot a ngo 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- Jay  (Reply)  20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Answers to questions show his knowledge of the project and that he knows what it takes to be an admin.  SCH ZMO  ✍ 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Suppess Learn to type ;) WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Level-headed, good communicator - essential qualities. Tyrenius 03:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Ter e nce Ong 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Seems reasonable. Captainj 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support no problems here. --Ton e  18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) M e rovingian { T C @ } 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Per all above. Looks good to me! -- Samir   धर्म 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Like the answers to the questions below. Good editing record, would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits, but everything else is covered, so its not a dealbreaker.  Rockpock e  t  22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I'm impressed. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support  Joe I  06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Passed my test. &mdash; Brenden  h  ull  (T + C) at 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - From what I have seen, he has always been an articulate editor and positive contributor to the project. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Low edit count to Wikipedia namespace != lack of policy knowledge. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reading? SushiGeek 06:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support despite the fact that Mr. Bell apparently does not use the minor edit marker - Mathbot only finds 71 minor edits to the main namespace over his entire Wikipedia career. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Bhadani 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Very helpful at a dispute on University of Kent, and having had a look through his contribs I'd say he'd make a great admin.  Nuge talk 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support not that he needs it. Congrats on your adminship!Minfo 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support  Noble eagle   (Talk)   06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * OpposeLow edit count compared with time here and vague answer to only question posted .01:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Switch to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, the questions were reverted and I placed them back the best I could. Yanksox 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose, extremely low edit count to Wikipedia namespace indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Comes from Northern Ireland. Ricardo Lagos 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious vandalism oppose vote, I crossed it out, I hope that's ok Someonebay 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral - I will support the user if he would enable his e-mail abakharev 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - per abakharev. Impressed with staying civil in hot situations, like on Northern Ireland's talk. --Chaser (T) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral, does not appear to meet 1FA, but has shown active RC patrolling. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Stifle and nominator Necrothesp both have convincing arguments. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) What about questions 2 and 3? :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Username	Ben W Bell Total edits	2827 Distinct pages edited	1863 Average edits/page	1.517 First edit	04:01, June 4, 2004 (main)	2095 Talk	194 User	47 User talk	301 Image	33 Image talk	1 Template	6 Template talk	21 Wikipedia	115 Wikipedia talk	13 Portal	1  G . H  e  21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) All user's edits. Voice -of- All Talk 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Ben W Bell (over the 2827 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 697 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 4, June, 2004 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 92.66% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 14.82 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 2827 edits): Article edit summary use (last 770 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 4.7% (133) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.6% (243) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.12% (682) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1816 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 10.75% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 12.63% (357 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 33.53% (948 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 36.75% (1039 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 17.09% (483 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 74.11% (2095) | Article talk: 6.86% (194) User: 1.66% (47) | User talk: 10.65% (301) Wikipedia: 4.07% (115) | Wikipedia talk: 0.46% (13) Image: 1.17% (33) Template: 0.21% (6) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0.04% (1) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.78% (22)
 * See Ben W Bell's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:
 * See Ben W Bell's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.



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: I am quite happy doing tidying of articles when I come across those that need doing on my random travels (I often just hit the random button and see what needs doing on the pages I reach), the same goes for Wikifying those same articles. I tend to try and represent a NPOV and will try and neutralise pages without removing particular viewpoints if it is at all possible. I do already spend a lot of my time contending with the constant issues of vandalism on Wikipedia which I attempt to do in a fair way while upholding the Wikipedia policies. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Of the articles I've created I'm happy with the HeliJet and Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) articles, though I need to go through my old school notes and add more to the Thomas Andrews one. The HeliJet one goes hand in hand with the other Canadian airline ones I've started (West Coast Air and Harbour Air) due to them being simple pages that get the information across (though of course other editors have been over them in the past). I'm also quite happy with the photographs I've added to these and some other articles as a keen amateur photographer (I also have more still to add). Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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: One in particular springs to mind regarding the Template:Airlines of Canada template. It centred around the actual creator of the template objecting to my adding of the aforementioned HeliJet to the template on the grounds that he didn't consider them an airline. I dealt with it by presenting my evidence that the international and Wikipedia community did indeed consider it an airline and I don't believe looking through the chat logs that I lost my temper. If I do get wound up over something (and lets face it everyone does at some point or another) I deliberately take a step back and ignore the topic for a day or to until I can approach it with a clearer head. Ben W Bell talk 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be an admin to help in the fight against vandalism mainly, and also to assist in building Wikipedia. I've found that with the amount of vandalism that goes on it is a slow job to go through and check the items, undo them and then warn users if they are obvious vandalism. I often spend time chasing vandals around pages, following their trails of breadcrumbs and warning them but lack the ability to do anything more about it. Yes I can postto bring them to immediate Admin attention but I do find that system can be slow and others often beat me to it so I still end up spending time chasing them around undoing the damage they have caused. Mainly. Ben W Bell talk 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, what would you do to fight vandalism? Yanksox 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I spend much of my time on Wikipedia already going through the recent changes list, and hitting random pages to see what needs doing. I monitor the recent changes for vandalism patterns and any suspect alterations. When I find obvious vandalism I revert it and give the user a warning if appropriate. If the user continues to vandalise then I continue to warn them appropriately. If the user is a serial vandal or a continuous vandal then quite frankly the ability to block the account so they do not waste everyone elses time continuously is an obvious option, though I think this should only be used for people who continually vandalise and not those who do it once or twice. Ben W Bell talk 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question from Cyde↔Weys

5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of Wikipedia's: (1) policies, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals?

A: Quite a complex question there. Policies are important, true anarchist states don't seem to work that well and everyone needs guidelines at least. Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason and are important to allow everyone to try and work from the same page as it were. Policies also help to define structures, regulations are even to an extent purpose. Punishment for violations of policies, well it is important for it to be seen that they are enforced but punishment has to be compared to crime. A simple ignorant violation that wasn't intentional and shows no pattern of being repeated is a "don't do it again" and "are you aware of" offense. Repeated violation of policy despite being warned stands a risk of jepordising the encyclopaedia and should be treated according. But each instance should be considered equally and policies should have a flexibility for events that weren't considered when it was drawn up. However that is the advantage of Wikipedia, we can discuss policy and process when these events do crop up and we can change how we respond in future and even alter policies if it seems prudent to do so. As for Wikipedia's goals, well they generally gell with some of my own viewpoints (yes I know we are NPOV). I'm pretty much an infosocialist with regards to information (yes I know it was actually a fictional philosophy but it works for me) to an extent. I don't condone breach of copyright however, but if people are willing to freely give their copyrights over to other and make them available then that is good. Information should be free to the masses, we should not have to pay fees to get access to historical or otherwise factual data. The whole world should be educated.

Question from FloNight


 * 6. Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?
 * A I must confess I had checked it and thought it was but didn't realise it had to specifically be activated. An oversight on my behalf. I have authorised it and allowed other users to email me and shall check out how I go about getting that information available. Ben W Bell   talk 


 * 8. Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note in all caps  at the top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do?  Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 02:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Well for a start I'd check it out. One thing I have learned is to not take everything at face value. I don't know everything, no one does, so I can't tell instantly whether or not the notice is factually correct or not. Due to the wonders of modern search engines you can find out if they have been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'd do my own research into the matter and make my own conclusions. It may be a copy and paste of a copyrighted article in which case it would depend on what it was. Also not all copy & paste jobs are wrong, some have been freely released by the original writer, and I've seen many cases on here where the original writer was actually the person to do the copy and paste. I'd need to look into it and make a judgement later, there is no one right answer. Ben W Bell   talk  07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 9. So far, so good. Follow up question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional.) As you are pondering the above, you notice the anon has been posted to AIV for page blanking and vandalizing the reporting users page. In running through the contribs you find the anon has again blanked the page. On the talk page you find a note again asserting that the decision to delete was the correct one. Anon goes on to express anger and perplexity over being reverted, “by a ROBOT!” and “BEING TREATED LIKE A VANDAL.” The vandalism consists of similar messages on the user page of the reporting user, rather than on  the talk page.  How do you respond? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Well I cannot condone vandalising other people's user pages, that would have to be undone. I'd explain to the user, on his talk page, that his claims are being looked into for veracity. If the page in question needs temporarily protected to prevent blanking and vandalism while it is being looked into then so be it, but I'd explain to the user the reasons behind all the actions where I can. Ben W Bell   talk  11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion
 * Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? In other words, if an admin speedy deletes a page for a reason that is not stated on CSD, should he be punished? What if he does it persistently? What about blockings? -- Drini 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Sorry I may be being obtuse (it is early in the morning) but could you clarify that question for me? Ben W Bell  talk  07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A: That is a very general question for a very specific result. Admins are not above the rules and policies, however no rules and policies can possibly cover every eventuality. I'm afraid I cannot give you a specific answer to that question and each case would have to be judged on its individual circumstances. Discussion is always a point and an option here. Ben W Bell  talk  17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, let's have a specific example: 03:48, 18 May 2006 Drini deleted "Template:Voting icons" (this template encourages voting instead of disucssing at debates) which was a template listing "quick vote" templates to stick graphical versions of support, delete, etc at discussions. That deletion isn't covered on policy, and I performed it without previous discussion, althought I provided reasons at deleting it. Elaborate. -- Drini 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I cannot see any of the reasons as to why it was done. Without reasons I cannot make a judgement as to whether it was correct or not. Also I've not seen the template in use previously to my knowledge so I am not intuitively aware of its actual purpose. I'm sorry but I cannot give you an answer on that. Ben W Bell   talk  07:08, 3 June 2006 (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.