Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon2


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

Benon
Final (4/12/1) ended 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

– before I begin, my previous RFA can be found here and the arbitration case I was an interested party in is here. I've now been here 3-4 months as a registered editor and before that I was editing sporadically as an anon editor from various IP addresses. In that time I've become steadily more and more addicted to Wikipedia, I believe that everyone has something to contribute to Wikipedia, whether that's writing comic book stubs, RC patrolling, welcoming the newcomers, etc.

As for me I am an ex-vandal, so I feel my primary energy is directed towards RC patrolling, I feel I have a bit of an edge telling the difference between a newcomer and a vandal. My talk page & e-mail are also always open to anyone for help and I'll always do my best to help them or point them to someone that can.

My edit count can be found here

If anyone wishes to ask any follow up questions, please feel free to post them here on the RFA, my talk page, or via the e-mail function.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom :D
 * I hearby withdraw this nominationBenon 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. Great vandalwhacker, would benefit from admin tools.  I can't believe people are opposing based on a joke.  -- Rory 0 96 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, people aren't opposing based ona joke. his past actions are well known to several RC people, if you ahdn't done it, someone else would have -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, has been here over 6 months and been making positive contributions during that time. Yamaguchi先生 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I haven't really evaluated whether Benon is a well-rounded user, and I don't really think that's terribly necessary. Unlike some others, I do think a great vandal fighter can benefit from the tools of adminship, and Wikipedia can benefit from granting those tools. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - unlike the last RfA, Benon has been actively contributing for a solid three months and his wait to resubmit shows patience. If he expands his range of involvement, he will be a great candidate next time. NoSeptember   talk  12:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Way too new --Kash 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, August 05 is "way too new?" -- Rory 0 96 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to the fact that only ten edits were made prior to Dec. 2005. --Alan Au 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Although editor seems to have accumulated a large number of good edits in recent months, I'm uncomfortable supporting a self-nomination based on a relatively short edit time, especially after past vandalism.  While I welcome his interest in reverting vandalism, I don't think admin tools are necessary for an editor to be an effective vandal fighter. I might be willing to support a much later nomination, particularly if sponsored by someone. --Alan Au 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course admin tools help vandal fighters be more effective; as an admin, you don't have to wait 5 minutes to sufficiently annoy an admin in #vandalism-en-wp to get a block and/or post on WP:AIV and wait 10 minutes. As for his past vandalism, those were over 6 months ago and he's clearly reformed.  -- Rory 0 96 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing personal, but per my previous rant, and the fact we're building an encyclopedia, not enough mainspace edits committed to building Wikipedia, and good vandal fighters not necessarily = good admins. Sorry. Oppose. NSL E (T+C) at 01:01 UTC (2006-03-29)
 * 2) Oppose I love to see an editor who has joined us after once being a vandal, but four months of active editing is not sufficient experience in such a case. Xoloz 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose To new since he was a vandal account. Love to see vandals reform themselves though. M o e   ε  04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not active in the wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I usually like to see a little more activity in AfD or whateverfD and their subsequent talk pages for people looking to become vandal-fighter-type admins. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak oppose given that he still at sometimes behaves like if he was proud of his past, and it's still too recent. However, should Requests for rollback ever starts, I'd support for that. Meanwhile, repeat the mantra Admin doesn't equate to RC patroller (some admins do RC, some patrollers are admins) but no set is fully contained on the other. -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Give it another 2 months and if you look good then, I'll vote for you.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Seeing as he is an ex-vandal, I believe he deserves to be given extra time until he is given admin. I believe in second chances but he just doesn't seem to have been with us long enough.--Andeee 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, not yet. Try again in June and everything will go fine. --Ter e nce Ong 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, still a bit too soon. Will have my vote in a few months--Looper5920 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, too few talk and Wikipedia talk edits. J I P  | Talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Benon's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot'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'd probably mainly spend a lot of time as an admin RC patrolling.


 * However I also have started doing some new page patrol and there is an amazing amount of text copied from other websites (usually in good faith from new users). Having admin abilities would help me to deal with these pages myself.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I don't think I have any extra special contributions that I wear as a sort of "trophy". However I feel for every page I've reverted vandalism on, every newcomer welcomed to Wikipedia and every little edit has hopefully helped to make Wikipedia even better. At the end of the day that's what (most) of us are here for and everyone does it in different ways.


 * 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 think most contributors have found their wiki-stress been tested at some point. If someone is causing me real stress. I will use a firm tone where its called for like here, if someone was really getting to me and I didn't feel capable of making a decision I would stop, make a cup of tea and go onto something else. After that you tend to feel calmer and not make rash decisions you'll regret. In fact I even got a cool as a cucumber award.


 * If after that you're not calm you've almost certainty got a massive conflict of interest and should be treading very carefully. At this point handing it over to an impartial admin to look at and act, or a discussion with one over IRC can make sure your not rushing things.


 * conversing with other Wikipedians over IRC has been really helpful for me so I don’t plan on dropping anytime soon ;)

Questions from Tawker stolen from NSL E : The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).


 * 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?
 * 2) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * 3) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * 4) 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?
 * 1) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * 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?
 * 1) 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?


 * 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.