Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joebengo


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

Joebengo
Final (18/21/9); Withdrawn by candidate 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 

- I feel sort of odd nominating myself for adminship but since I find myself wishing I were an admin at times I thought I would give it a shot. I like to consider myself a low-key editor who just wants what is best for Wikipedia, I started editing about a year ago without a user name and started editing with this user name in October of 2006. My edit countis a little over 3,000 with over 1,500 mainspace edits, (though I contribute some of my edit count to AWB). Since joining Wikipedia I have stuck to editing U.S. Navy and Basque related articles, I am especially proud of the work I did on the United States Naval Academy article in order to get it to WP:GA status, BUT that is not the only thing I have done (a rough idea of what I have done can be found here). I have also, in my spare time, contributed to reverting vandalism and I have nominated a fair share of AfD while surfing the "Random article" link. I understand that some of you will want to know my position on Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies, and or other issues and I will gladly take any questions. If nominated I would work to make Wikipedia a better place and with the sysop tools I believe that I will be able to achieve that goal. Joebengo 01:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes.--Joebengo 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I have Withdrawn my RfA because I was out of town and was not been able to get back, being unable to answer the questions I felt comprimised the vote.--Joebengo 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: First off I would like to work on WP:CSD because I find articles that are tagged for a speedy deletion need to be take care of ASAP and those articles are disruptive to the integrity of Wikipedia, secondly I would like to help the WP:AFD. I also want to be an Admin that is approachable and able to help other users who don't have sysop tools and are in need of Admin assistance.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have three articles that I am very happy with, the first being the United States Naval Academy article, which I took a keen intrest in since I applied for it this past summer, the USNA article was very choppy and was missing a lot of history and inline citations which I spent almost three months editing. It was nominated for GA last week and within a day it was approved for GA status. The second article I am most proud of would be the Basque-American article, which was also my first big project, I added much of the information on the page and created the map and the list of notables. I'll try to speed things up, my third article that I am particularly pleased with is the List of Basques, after a lot of discussion on the talk page about seperating Basques from dispora Basques I took it upon myself to place flagicons before every name (which took a VERY LONG time) and I also spiced the article up with pictures of Basque people who were born Basque and not just dispora Basque.


 * 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 really haven't been in any conflicts over editing that werent resolved or taken care of civily. Of course I have run into other users with different POV and instead of creating conflict I have just gotten a consensus from the community on the talk page where there may be a difference and taken care of things that way.


 * 4. Your user page says "this user finds copyright paranoia disruptive". Could you define "copyright paranoia", and better yet, give some examples of decisions or incidents you feel are the result of "copyright paranoia", and how you might have handled them differently? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A:


 * 5. According to question 1, you seem to only anticipate doing deletion chores, when adminship is much more than that. Do you understand throughly enough about All of the tools in order to become an admin? Tails0600 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A:


 * General comments


 * See Joebengo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * I just want everyone to know that all I want for Wikipedia is for it to be a better place and with the tools of an administrator I believe that I will be a better asset to Wikipedia as a whole. Feel free to ask any questions. I feel that too much emphasis is being placed on edit counts for RfA and not the quality of the work and I hope that people will vote for me for what I am and not how many edits I have.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Support--User: (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good candidate, no reason to oppose from his records. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, no reason to think he'll misuse or abuse the tools. --Rory096 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with mild reservations. Most speedy deletions are not urgent, with the notable exceptions of CSD G1, G3, G10 and T1.  They can wait a day or two without harming anyone.  Generally you want to focus your CSD work on the longest backlogs - generally G11, G12, A7, and some of the image categories.  If this RFA passes, I'd encourage you to process a few dozen CSDs before you close AFDs, but I'm willing to give you the chance. YechielMan 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Adminship is no big deal. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Unlikely to abuse them, as stated it's "no big deal". Matthew 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support meets my criteria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danntm (talk • contribs).
 * 8) Support - I was very impressed with the dedication that JoeBengo gave to a college article, bringing it from kind of a mess to a GA level. Fact: he has never attended that college but made him self an expert on it. He worked pleasantly with all responsible editors. He was efficient in laying out what needed to be done. He displayed considerable common sense about the choices that needed to be made. I don't know about "projects" but he has had thousands of individual edits. He appears to have a lot of enthusiasm and energy which can be useful to Wikipedia.Student7 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Whoa! What's with this "gnome" stuff, fella? I happen to know that Joe is 6'6" (2 meters for you Euros) in his stalking stocking feet. Well, I haven't actually seen him, but I'm pretty sure. Can't give a reference 'cause I don't know how! He did all the work! Just proves my point! :)  Student7 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) So far, nobody has come up with a reason not to trust this user. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support against editcountitis and deletionitis. If the biggest objections to him are over the raw quantity of edits he's made in various areas, he's okay by me.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, looks okay. BuickCenturydriver   (Honk, contribs)  22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 05:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I have read each and every opposition comment below as of the date of this comment. While there is some evidence of past errors, there is no concern on my part that he will abuse the tools. The additional edits will come but numbers alone do not, in my judgment, disqualify him. JB Evans  11:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Very good contributor with great experience and dedication to improve Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia will benefit from him a lot. Full support! Euskera 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) --dario vet  (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Joe seems a person with quite good sense, responsible and interested in the project. His collaboration in matters such as the Basque Wikiproject (and related articles) are clearly among the main ones. I really think he'll make a good admin if selected. --Sugaar 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Lack of Experience doesnt actually matter but you have low Wikipedia edit count but anywayz a person should be judged on ability and honesty and not on experience and Wikicount..Go for it..Good luck...-- Cometstyles 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. All systems clear! Ab e g92 contribs 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No. sorry. Very few CFDs and not much project space. Basically, needs more time sorry. WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * CFDs? What the hell? Even I don't have CFDs, and I have 25,000 edits. How does that disqualify someone from adminship, especially when they didn't say ANYTHING about CFDs in their first question? --Rory096 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the below comment, Rory. And a reminder to remain civil -- KZ Talk • Contribs 05:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The candidate didn't say anything about CfD except by accident. I object to the idea that you have to spend some time as a deletion gnome to become an administrator.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, sorry. Very little XfD involvement considering your response to Q1. Suggest try again in 3 months. Addhoc 10:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, sorry. Joebengo's been doing a good job (I often see his edits to Portal:Basque and Basque-related articles), but his Wikipedia space count is just too low at the moment. Much more evidence is needed to verify if this user is experienced enough to become an administrator. Also, most edits consist in tagging talk pages, so there's no real need for the admin tools at this time. More vandalfight and participation in WP:XFD are badly needed. Please try again in a few months.-- Hús  ö  nd  12:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Addhoc and Husond. You need more Wikipedia edits for adminship. Captain   panda  14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Far too little experience in project-space, the heart of project maintenance. Xoloz 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Lack of experience. Not enough participation in XfD, not enough user talk experience (besides vandal warnings). Relatively recent mistakes like this and a little bit of canvassing for his RfA convince me that Joebengo, however well-intended, is not ready. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your link is, apparently, to him forgetting to subst: a template. Are you saying that forgetting one technical detail makes Joebengo untrustworthy?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that was nearly 4 months ago and I would hardly consider that to be "recent", depending of course on what the defintion of recent is.--Joebengo 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I may be stretching the definition of "recent" or even "relatively recent". Still, the mistake I'm pointing out is not the failure to subst a template but rather the more serious mistake of putting a "you've been blocked template" on the talk page of a user that has not been blocked. Pascal.Tesson 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Good contribs, but get that Wiki. edit count at least up to triple digits.  Gan fon  15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you draw such an arbitrary line if you think he's a good contributor? I'd like to point you to the discussion about wikipedia-space editcountitis on the talk page.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As above - NYC JD (interrogatories) 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not enough experience in Wikipedia:. --- RockMFR 03:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Although you do a great work around here, lack of Wikipedia-namespace edits suggests minimal knowledge in admin-related tasks. I'm also not particularly comfortable supporting a candidate who "wishes to be an admin". Spend a while in learning the ropes and come back in a few months or so. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Low Wikispace edit count-- $U IT  17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Sorry, just not enough experience. You need a secure knowledge of admin-related tasks in order to proceed. Come back in a few months. Sr13 (T|C) 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. It does appear that you are a quality editor, but I'm not convinced that you need admin tools for what you do.  You primarily stated that you want to help out with deletion-related admin tasks and I don't think you have enough experience in those areas yet.  Spend a couple months participating in XfD's and I'd be glad to support. --Mus Musculus 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not yet - needs more admin-wiki related experience. Dig into these tasks and come back in 6-12 months and you'll most likely breeze through. -- VS talk 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, just on the basis of the candidate's user page, which contains multiple inappropriate userboxes, has spelling and/or grammar errors, has annoying "message box" orange boxes at top (including one advertising this RfA), and is included in several inappropriate categories. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please specify which userboxes and categories on his userpage are "inappropriate"? As you know inappropriate userboxes and cats are for deletion, it's a very serious statement. WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you asked:
 * Userboxes which inappropriately advertise a political opinion:
 * "This user supports the independence of the Basque Country"
 * "This user supports the U.S. Republican Party"
 * "This user does not support the ACLU"
 * Userboxes which inappropriately advertise affiliations which may tend to be divisive:
 * "This user is of Basque ancestry"
 * "This user is a member of the United Methodist Church"
 * "This user is a Buckeye"
 * Userboxes which are advocacy of a point of view in a manner which may tend to be divisive:
 * "This user is a teenager, not a stereotype"
 * "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive"
 * Userboxes which express irrelevant information:
 * "This user is a Cancerian"
 * User categories which are inappropriate for Wikipedia:
 * Category:Methodist Wikipedians (categories identifying personal religious affiliation serve no purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia)
 * Category:Wikipedians in their teens (categories identifying personal age serve no purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia)
 * These are all long-standing established userbox with large usage, especially the copyright paranoia one. Copyright paranoia is a very serious problem on Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong to express opposition to it on userpage. Look at yourself Kelly Martin, you have userboxes says "This user is a feminist" (advertising a particular ideology) and "This user is Satan". I'm sure the latter one is especially offensive to Christians. No one want Satan to be loose here on Wikipedia. And I find no problem to tell a person's ethnic background in a userbox. I'm ethnically Chinese and I am allowed to say that in userboxes. WooyiTalk, Editor review 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not running for administrator. Joebengo is.  Your response is, further, an ad hominem, and on that basis I see no reason to continue this discussion here.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My pointing to your own userboxes is not the primary point I try to address here, rather it's just fuel to the fire. My point is that ethnic userboxes and viewpoint boxes are very long-established and recognized. It is a consensus that there is nothing wrong to post such userboxes to indicate a person's background. WooyiTalk, Editor review 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kelly, you still did not point out which userbox was inappropriate. I reviewed all of them and none are inappropriate. Does the claim to be a Satan is appropriate? Or you being feminist? By opposing the candidacy due to that reason, you must clarify the claims you made with specific examples of inappropriate subject of the user box. Thanks. Euskera 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Excessive number of trivial main ns edits recently, any more AWB activity and I'd suggest a bot account :). "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive" is especially troubling, but edits like  this go beyond simply troubling... Edits like that indicate to me that Joebengo is a risk to the project and its mission. After consideration, I think we need to see some evidence of understanding and commitment to our goals and missions.--Gmaxwell 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (revised 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry, you are wrong, No copyright paranoia is a policy of the foundation, read the page. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case there is any danger of someone being misled by this, the page is a meatball-style discussion page, not a policy page. Jkelly 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wooyi I pointed out where Joebengo made an edit which worked directly against our copyright policy, where he argued we should keep an unlicensed images. If he said "avoid copyright paranoia" while standing up as a glowing example of someone who promotes free content, it would be something else entirely. --Gmaxwell 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Avoid copyright paranoia" is most assuredly not a policy of the Foundation. I've struck that bit of the comment, not because I disagree with it, but so others are not misled by reading it. I wonder how long it has been since Erik revisited that essay... Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Until he clarifies what he means by "copyright paranoia" I don't feel comfortable supporting. — CharlotteWebb 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis of a self nomination and low project space participation Rackabello 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note (Bureaucrats will have no doubt noticed these by now) to Rackabello - Self-nominations are permitted under the rules and many editors do nominate themselves when they think they are ready - hence the chance for the rest of the community to decide by !vote - and it is probably inappropriate for a new editor to oppose on the basis that an RfA candidate is following the rules.-- VS talk 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed this entry from the count. It was created by a brand new user who has done little beyond voting on things... and the reasoning is bogus. It shouldn't be considered. --Gmaxwell 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Lack of documented experience. Troubled by copyright paranoia comment. Alan.ca 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry your oppose is based on wrong assumption, Avoid Copyright Paranoia is legitimate, read the page on meta, it is established, so it's not a reason to oppose. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- user uploaded Image:Brannon.jpg four days ago; an unfree image of a living person sourced to a blog without copyright holder information and a "rationale" that just repeats boilerplate. Coupled with the userbox mentioned by a number of people above, this user either doesn't understand our copyright and licensing policies, or expresses their disagreement with them by pretending that they don't exist.  Jkelly 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this user's mischaracterization of Wikipedia's mission to create a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia as "copyright paranoia". -- Cyde Weys  22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cyde, you have misunderstood it, please read Avoid Copyright Paranoia, an established meta page with Erik Muller's statement and that page is the basis of "copyright paranoia" userbox. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me think about this one a bit more then. -- Cyde Weys  22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I should now point out that those were Erik's views from awhile ago, before he became a Board member. That certainly does not make them Foundation policy.  He has changed his views since then as well.  -- Cyde Weys  16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Cyde I've always trusted you as an admin, but can you specify which provision of his former views are changed, and why they are wrong? Thanks. I personally do agree with that page that a picture painted hundreds of years ago is not copyrighted. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wooyi, that's an utter red herring and non sequitur. Of course hundreds-year old paintings are no longer copyright and are public domain.  That's the law.  None of these fabled "copyright paranoiacs" would ever claim such a thing.  The portions of his views that have changed revolve around protecting the freely-licensed content from getting corrupted by non-licensed content that limits its redistributability and hinders our mission to create a free content encyclopedia that can be used anywhere (many countries don't even hair fair use laws, for example).  -- Cyde Weys  03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per presence of divisive and inflammatory userboxes on his userpage. Administrators are supposed to have better discretion than this, and having an administrator who is actively supporting independence of one region, supporting one political party above another, and has a bizarre grudge against a civil liberties organization, makes the project looks bad, especially if they got involved in related editing disputes.  -- Cyde Weys  16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for use of a fair use image in their userspace which I [just removed. Admins should clearly know this aspect of the fair use policy/criteria and enforce it. [[User:Mecu| MECU ]]≈ talk 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral good user, however doesn't meet the general criteria for adminship; you have low participation in the project-space, you say in your answer to Q1 that you would like to help in CfD when you have very few edits in there, and there is a lack of user communication, which is quite crucial for an admin. I would definitely support if you have worked on these areas and renominated yourself. — An as  talk? 02:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, part of the reason for wanting to become an admin is so that I can work on AfD (note I accidentally put CfD when I was responding in my question) more and be more involved in that field, I also understand the lack of user communication but I would partially attribute that to the fact that I have worked in fields where there are little or no other users who are active such as the Basque Portal and Wikiproject where I am a maintainer and rarely come in contact with other users.--Joebengo 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. But still, your AfD involvement is not enough. Sorry. — An as  talk? 12:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Too little project edits. I'll be happy to support once you contribute more to that. -- KZ  Talk • Contribs 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Sorry, insufficient project space experience, recommend withdraw as it is unlikely to pass. --WinHunter (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Echo the projectspace comments above. I would like to see greater participation in the admin-related side of Wikipedia before this vote slides to a support.  You're a good editor, more experience is the key. (aeropagitica) 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Well, I think you could definitely be an Admin in the future but I think you need a bit more experience, you have an OK edit summary usage and if you intend to help closing etc at WP:CFD it would be nice to see a bit of work there, give it another 2-3 months of quality and varied contributions and you'll probably pass - Good luck!  Te ll y a ddi ct  11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - I don't think he would misuse the admin abilities and is a sensible user. However, I think a little more experience is needed in some areas. If you get more experience and re-nominate, then I would happily support you. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris  11:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - you've made a good start, the area I would like to see more contribution is user talk - interactions with other editors is key to good adminship (obviously along with policy understanding and all that jazz). I think more experience and re-apply when you're happy with what you've achieved.  The Rambling Man 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - From what I can peek at your contributions, they are not that bad at all. However, I would like to see you maybe participate in some of the inner-workings of the project, since there is a lot of things you will probably be asked to do as administrator. Give it a few months. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral - It bothers me to see that you only anticipate deletion tools, instead of the full nine yards. I suggest you answer my question above, and after that this will turn into a support. I do commend you, however, in that you don't care how many edits you made, but what you want to do with the tools, and helping Wikipedia in the process. Tails0600 19:57, 11 April 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.