Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

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

Benjah-bmm27

Final (78/30/6); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contribs) - Benjamin has been editing on Wikipedia actively since Jan 2006. He is a prolific editor, having been involved in all sorts of Chemistry articles in particular, and many other articles in general. He has been heavily involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. He is an expert in creating images of molecules, such as [1] and [2]. He has an account at commons:User:Benjah-bmm27. While not directly relevant, he has been very helpful categorizing images for ready use. I've never seen Ben lose his temper; he has reacted to criticism with grace [3]; successfully worked in close collaboration with other editors on many occasions, [4] including the FA, Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. He's also been able to work through the difficult issues related to uranium trioxide article. Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Ben (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Page moves, helping editors understand image use policy, reverting vandalism and trying to prevent it recurring, helping to resolve disputes amicably (pointing editors in the direction of useful policies and suggestions such as 3RR, Wikipedia:Etiquette, etc. and trying to engage them in dialogue - usually works a lot better than blocking), and generally promoting the project by setting a good example

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My images. I'm using them to make information on the structure of important and interesting substances available to everyone. These images encourage readers of all levels to look at chemistry articles, and help illustrate the points the articles make. I find that if I add a good image to an article, more editors seem to flock to the page and work on improving it - an image seems to be a catalyst for the development of quite a few articles.

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: Sure, everyone feels a bit stressed if they feel they've been unfairly challenged, but I try to deal with the stress issue personally and come back to the editing issue when I'm in as good a frame of mind as possible.

I usually take some time away from Wikipedia to reflect on the problem if it seems to be causing me stress, perhaps asking someone in the real world what they think. Then I'll go back in a more balanced mood, I'll always assume good faith, and I'll try and respond thoughtfully and honestly to the editor. And I usually remind myself that the purpose of WP is to make a good encyclopaedia, nothing more, nothing less! That purpose leads to almost all the other policies, one way or another.

I also try and follow the example of the many fine administrators that I know through the Chemistry WikiProject. I learn from them and shamelessly copy their good ideas and methods. Their professionalism encourages me to raise my game. I hope that, likewise, I will encourage other editors to improve.

A good example of this was during the long and complicated disputes over uranium trioxide, mentioned above. At times I got annoyed or thought certain editors were behaving foolishly, but I knew that stating this directly was not going to help. I learned a great deal about sticking to verifiable sources and not inventing conclusions that sources don't make themselves. To me it's really simple - if you follow the spirit of Wikiquette and explain your thoughts and actions clearly, you're likely to avoid most problems.

Optional questions from Tiptoety ^talk

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: Being banned from Wikipedia means you have been told not to edit. Being blocked means your user account or IP address has been disabled from editing. It's like being banished from a town - a WP ban is like the order from the judge, telling you to go into exile, whereas a WP block is like the town's gates being locked shut, so you'll find it hard to get back in.

5. When should "cool down" blocks be used?

A: Never, as they'll most encourage further anger and therefore damage

6.What is the most important policy(s) in regards to admins functions?

A: It depends what admin functions you end up doing the most - knowing the detail is probably more important for legal and copyright policies, but a good understanding of all the main policies and their purposes is surely essential.

7. What is you opinion on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it?

A: I think it's a good idea, and will add myself to it. Although in principle it could be abused, as long as requests for recall are genuinely in good faith, it's unlikely to be a problem. Putting yourself in this category makes you appear more accountable.

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR, and when is it appropriate to use it?

A: You resort to ignoring a rule when it gets in the way of the overall goal of Wikipedia, i.e. making a free online encyclopaedia that's as good as possible. All the accepted rules have this ultimate aim, so if you sidestep the letter of a given rule in order to improve Wikipedia, you're still adhering to the spirit in which the rule was invented.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, and others.

9. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: I'd make Wikipedia:About Wikipedia simpler and more accessible to first time readers, perhaps with a diagram of some kind at the start - an image that's easy to remember and will remind you of the pillars and important policies of the project.

10. A user creates an article describing a software product, but the article does not assert the notability of the subject. Can this article be speedily deleted? Why or why not?

A: Nope, cannot speedily delete because software is not included in criterion A7, which limits speedy deletion of articles lacking an assertion of notability to people, groups, companies, or web content.

11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: I've learned plenty of ways of coping with unavoidable stress in real life, but on WP, it's easy to take a five-minute break and return with a clear head. If I think I might be getting undesirable or confusing(!), I'll pause, reconsider the what I'm doing and why, and if I cannot overcome the problem, I'll ask another editor to take the lead.

Optional questions from jonny-mt

12 You log on to Wikipedia and check your watchlist only to notice that an anonymous IP has vandalized one of the articles--judging from the timestamp, it's been that way for several hours without anyone noticing. You revert the vandalism and head over to their talk page to leave a warning only to find that they have a series of warnings from a month ago, including a final warning. Do you block them for vandalism? Why or why not?

A: The IP address might be shared, for example a school. I'd trace it and check. I'd also want to make sure that the new vandalism was the same type and in the same articles they'd been warned about vandalising previously. If it was a simple continuation, I'd block 'em.

13 You respond to a notice on WP:AIV complaining that an anonymous IP persists in blanking content from a biography of a living person despite a final warning. You head to the IP's talk page and confirm that they have been warned as described. Do you block them? Why or why not?

A: First I'd ask them why they were blanking the page. They may be the living person, inexperienced in editing WP but genuinely removing libelous or otherwise unacceptable content. I'd leave them a message with details of how contact Wikimedia about BLP, and review the content that they blanked from the article. Blanking has less serious repercussions than libel, so I'd err on the side of caution before blocking, while trying to rapidly establish the editor's motives. I'd monitor the IP's contributions, and the article in question, closely.

14 A user leaves a notice on your talk page asking for page protection on an article due to an edit conflict. You look at the article history and notice that the editor who contacted you has been making a number of identical edits that are removed by a number of other editors each time--there have been seven such back-and-forth exchanges today alone. Do you protect the article? Why or why not?

A: Clear violation of 3RR, but there may be good reason in the eyes of either party. I'd investigate, always bearing in mind what action(s) would benefit the page and the project the most. Protection is a blunt instrument, so I'd use with caution - it would impede vandals and those edit-warring, but also any others editors. If the editors reverting each other could be encouraged to move their dispute to the talk page (the threat of a 3RR block might encourage them), protection would not be necessary.

Questions from Majorly

15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. Is this question relevant to my RfA?

16. Why do you think that?

A.

17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I don't play the violin, but if I did, I don't see why that should prevent me editing Violin.

Optional question from OhanaUnited Inspired by optional RfA questions on Chinese Wikipedia

18. What are your views on admins who are not of legal age?

A. Age should in principle be irrelevant to being an admin. The legal age for what, exactly?

19. Should a mentally ill editor become an admin? Why? Do you think this would affect the creditability of Wikipedia?

A. It would surely depend on the individual and the mental illness. If the illness had no adverse effect on their behaviour on WP, there should be no problem. In fact, it would be a case of serious discrimination if an editor were denied adminship solely because they suffered from a mental illness.

Wikipedia's credibility lies in the verifiability of its articles and its neutral point of view. It also relies on its editors and particularly its admins to behave well - which they generally do. If an admin behaved inappropriately, whatever the cause, the would soon end up being scrutinised and face the possibility of being desysopped.

It should be reasonably easy to tell if an admin with a mental illness would behave inappropriately by looking at their contributions while not yet an admin. If they have behaved well so far, they are unlikely to turn bad on being granted admin powers!

As-optional-as-any-of-the-other-questions questions from Messedrocker'

Greetings, citizen. I haven't the slightest idea who you are; however, I have randomly selected you for experimentation purposes.

20. If you were offered a bowl of butter pecan ice cream, would you consume said ice cream? Personally, it is my favorite flavor.

A.

21. Would you consider the above question an illegal disruption of Wikipedia, and, were you given the opportunity to, would you deem it necessary to block me?

A.

Optional question from Alex Bakharev (talk)

22. Somebody is so against your having the administrator tools that apparently [s]he bothers to setup a sock account and start a canvassing campaign. And I thought Chemistry is an uncontroversial topic. Do you have any idea who it might be? What conflict caused such strong feelings? What would you do as an admin if you saw such a behavior on somebody elses's RfA?

A:

Optional question from Juliancolton

23. Somebody removes your images from articles in good-faith, claming they're incorrect, even though you know that they are clearly correct. You revert his/her changes, and the user, still claiming they're incorrect, removes them again. This goes on for several revisions. Although they are good-faith edits, do you call it vandalsim and give him/her warnings? If he/she continues, do you block him/her?

A:

General comments

• See Benjah-bmm27's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Benjah-bmm27: Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Benjah-bmm27 before commenting.

Discussion

• Time extended by bureaucrat. It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to email RfA participants through Special:Emailuser encouraging them to oppose this candidate. Stealth canvassing to distort consensus is completely unacceptable. Given that the extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained, I have decided to give this request an additional 24 hours in order to try and offset this. I will be posting to a few centralised locations asking contributors to take the time to neutrally assess Benjah-bmm27 suitability. WjBscribe 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

Support, no reason to do otherwise. Will ^(talk) 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Looks good to me. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support No reason to oppose (plus a creative answer to Q4). Soxred93 | talk bot 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Very professional, enthusiastic, and well-spoken. Not likely to be misunderstood or to be uncivil. Not likely to abuse the mop. Meets my criteria. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Looks like a great candidate! RxS (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support an asset to the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Great contributions to WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Chemicals and to Commons. IMHO there is no reason to oppose. --Leyo 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Agree with Wisdom's concerns, but Q1 answer means they aren't overly relevant. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. He is an excellent content contributor, he is smart, careful, and has the right personality. I don't care if he hasn't edited the Wikipedia namespace that much. --Itub (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, seems sensible enough, no reason to believe that they'll abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
12. Support Looking at these user's edits, I see evidence of competence, an understanding of how wikipedia works, expertise in his field, and in the 200+ user talk edits, I see cordiality, politeness, and a willingness to explain his actions. II can also infer from this user's past edits that any area in which he may be lacking experience he will quickly learn and act appropriately. As such, I am comfortable extending my trust to this user vis-a-vis the application of his judgment, and wish him the best of luck in this RfA. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - good user, steady edit count, good use of summaries. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - he's an excellent contributor, and if we can't trust him then there's no hope for the rest of us. I don't care if his namespace edits are a bit thin - look at what he has done. I don't see anything that says all admins have to do everything. Chris (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - I've worked with Ben often with editing related to the chemistry Wikiprojects. I know that he is a trustworthy, intelligent, level-headed editor, and there is no reason not to entrust him with additional tools. The number of edits in Wikipedia namespace should be a non-issue for a demonstrably trustworthy editor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, a lengthy experience of editing gives you a far better experience of what we do as a community when applying and interpreting policies than you get by joining into the meandering discussions in project-space about the policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Knowledgable and outstanding contributor. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Great answers to the questions. Long-time contributor, does excellent work in areas few people deal with, and I have absolute confidence he won't abuse the tools. Few contributions to project space don't present a problem to me at all, and even if he'll only use the buttons every now and then, I'm sure he'll use them well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. There are several acceptable areas in which to prepare for being an admin, mainspace is one of them. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Good answers to questions, (I specifically like 10 and 14), combined with a base knowledge of Wiki-policy, combined with excellent contributions, combined with being open to recall lead me to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support I agree with Tim Vickers, a lot can be said for learning and applying policy in the main namespace. Great long-time editor is not likely to abuse the mop. Xenon⁵⁴ 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
22. SupportFine, perfect for adminship!-- Carerra^"Chatter" 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Meets my standards, although Wikispace editing is a bit low. I do not think the user needs the tools, but that's not a major concern for me. He appears to be a likeable chap who will not abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - The theme that is expressed by all sides; Support – Neutrals and even the Opposes are that this editor is not a threat to misuse the tools. In fact, the tools will improve the editor’s ability to improve the articles he is working on, there by improving Wikipedia as a whole. What more can we ask of our Administrators? Shoessss |  Chat  00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed, I often think that in our eagerness to find perfect candidates for administrators, the merely excellent candidates are discounted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

25. Support I am not convinced by the oppose votes here, since I've heard that Benjah is ready to be an admin, worked in chemistry-related pages, etc. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Sound editor and the debate over project/main is missing the whole point. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Shit, even more questions... John Reaves 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Looks good. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - The answers to the questions above tell me that Ben has the requisite policy knowledge needed to be an administrator. Although I may not agree completely with some of his answers, I'm heartened by his ability to recognize each of the policy issues inherent in the questions as well as his obvious willingness to assume good faith rather than reaching for the block button. This combined with his considerable content-related knowledge tells me that he will make a good admin. --jonny-mt 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak support. Typically, I'd like to see some more project contributions, but otherwise, a great user that deserves the mop.--TBC!?! 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Weak Support I agree with the opposers that the lack of project space edits is an issue / a concern. But it's not insurmountable and probably not actually relevant in your case. I don't actually think you'll have a lot of use for the tools, to be honest. However "no use for the tools" is a poor argument, and the odd time you will use them saves someone else doing it for you. On balance, no reason why not to grant here. Pedro :  Chat  12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - agree with concerns but not to the point of not supporting. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - per my usual rules: yes, he can be trusted and yes, he has enough overall experience. I fine editor that may not need the tools all the time, but it will be of no harm to the project in him having them and using when necessary. Good luck, Poeloq (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support trustworthy, and per Rlevse. Spencer^T♦C 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I trust you to not abuse the tools. Maybe you haven't shown that you completely know policy, but I didn't know everything when I became an admin, and I doubt that most do. It's possible to learn on the job. If you don't know certain things, you can stick to areas that you do know... until you catch on. нмŵוτнτ 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Slade (TheJoker) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Ben has single handedly transformed the appearance of hundreds of chemistry pages with superb graphics. Complaints below about "low mainspace edits" and "lack of familiarity" are irrelevant when one considers how many articles carry Ben's brilliant images. Such statistics merely reflect the technical quirk that separates image content from the word content. Ben has been a committed Wikipedian, and a great colleague. Walkerma (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. As opposed to all the opposes here below, I do not believe that not editing the wikipedia namespace is a proof that a user is not familiar with our policies and guidelines. Seen there are no blocks listed, and knowing his edits, with all the images created, and all the data added, I don't see any problems there. Ben is an excellent editor, and I am sure, that when he needs to apply an administrative action where he is not sure about, he will contact other admins to verify that first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support.Per answers above. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Good answers to a large amount of questions make up for lack of Wikipedia-space activity. Acalamari 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Sensible answers, and it appears an impressive set of contributions. I fail to understand how participation in projectspace is necessary to understanding what's in it. We need more writer-admins. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support -- An excellent editor, with an impeccable record. No reason to oppose. Xdenizen (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - seemingly bona fide! —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support A qualified, competent editor. Ready for the mop, indeed. --Sharkface217 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Not a strong answer to Q18, but your answer to Q19 makes me cast a support ballot. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support, great editor & user overall. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Strong collaborative background, demonstrated knowledge of key policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support, good luck and happy editing!!!Dusti^{talk to me} 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. I see no red flags. I see strong edits, and good interactions. Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Support looks like a sound candidate from the answers and history Mayalld (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Going by the quality of the mainspace edits rather than the quantity, the good answers to questions, and the obvious ability to communicate constructively. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - Good answers to questions, and we could certainly use admins who can help settle disputes and help with images. Concerns regarding personal factors which do not present themselves in the editor's work on wikipedia are basically irrelevant. I can't fault someone for a problem they admit but don't seem to ever really negatively impact them. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support, because I hate canvassing, and find many of the opposes quite unconvincing. Bellwether ^B_C 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Evidently has the best interests of the project at heart, communicates and collaborates well, no ghastly faux pas in the answers. I conclude that Ben is unlikely to burn the place down, either deliberately or by accident, and we are not so short of sysop bits that they can only be given out to players of wikispace MMORPGs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. I like all his answers. He could do with a little more participation in project space, but that is not to say he doesn't read those pages. — Edokter • Talk • 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Automatic support - I didn't give more than a cursory glance to his edits and really don't care one way or the other, but when I see people opposing for "namespace balance" reasons, I automatically support. I don't support the notion that you need to have some exact percentage of mainspace vs Wikipedia space edits in order to have the technical competence to hit a block, delete, or protect button. --B (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. I was drawn by the AN/I notice. The solid, consistent editing outweighs, in my belief, the lack of non-article space edits (which is a concern). In addition, his answers show a reflectiveness that will serve him well as an admin. Jd2718 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
60. A low number of EDITS in policy space is not evidence of a lack of knowledge of policy. Good answers to questions, except for totally flubbing the butter pecan one. Support ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. I'm here due to the AN/I notice. This editor's Talk page shows plenty of interaction with other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and shows that he can resolve disagreements promptly and without rancor. When somebody hints that a certain task needs doing it seems he is off like a shot to take care of that task. It's hard to picture him as a disagreeable or bad-tempered admin, or one who would use the tools carelessly. I agree that his lack of work in Wikipedia space might be a concern if we had any other reason to be worried about his behavior as an admin. But people are raked constantly over the coals at RfA for lack of article work, and this man appears to be very productive in the chemistry pages. If you ever need to know the mechanism of nitrosation of secondary amines by the nitrosonium cation, I don't know a better place to ask the question than on Ben's Talk page. Since I drew a few molecular diagrams in ancient times I have the impression that his work in that area is top grade, both graphically and scientifically. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support: Quality surprasses quantity of edits, making up for a lack of many namespace edits. I am especially fond of his dispute handling. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support, over two years of steady quality contributions, a clean record, and good interaction with other editors shows me he amply meets requirements for the role. His answers demonstrate he's knowledgeable enough about policy, and it's not rocket science anyway, though this editor appears bright enough to handle rocket science even if it were that challenging. The more important issues are, can this person be trusted with the tools, and does he have common sense and the proper temperament for the role? A look at his extensive record makes me answer yes without hesitation. --MPerel 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Hands down, no question.Thright (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright
65. Support, and I'm going to give a fairly detailed reason. Project experience is not needed to be an admin. Being an admin is fairly easy. I know a lot of people like to suggest it is incredibly hard, and a massive, onerous responsibility, but honestly, it is not a difficult job for most people. The tools are very easy to figure out and to use, and if a user is bright enough to edit in the way Benjah has done so, they will have no problems. Adminship is only difficult for those who are unsuited to the role (ie not bright, not trustworthy, or with very little maturity). Sure, a lack of experience in certain areas may require a light touch at first, but I see no evidence to suggest that wouldn't be the case. Would five hundred mindless "per above" RFA supports and "keep"s at AFDs change that? Of course it wouldn't. All that is required is evidence that the candidate is bright, sensible, and trustworthy. I see ample evidence of all three, and foresee Benjah having no problems with the tools. Neıl ☎ 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - Appears to be good in dealing with disputes and has good answers. Project space is important but should never become a litmus test for admins.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Strong support. Lack of project space edits has never been a valid reason to oppose adminship and I question the judgment of those who value pixel-pushing bureaucracy over quality content. There is a serious and disturbing problem with the direction the encyclopedia is heading when a good editor like Benjah is denied the tools. We need less mindless policies and more quality articles. When the rules-makers become more important than the content-creators, the project is officially dead. —Viriditas | Talk 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support - Civil and good answers to questions. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 11:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
69. Support a good candidate with solid contributions. Some of my colleagues note the low editcount as a reason to oppose, but I feel differently - indeed, I actually hit my 5,000th edit during my RfA, and haven't deleted the main page yet or anything! If the candidate is reasonable, and if they tread lightly in areas where their experience may be lacking, I have no concerns about granting them the tools - and I believe this to be such a candidate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - the excellent answers to the questions demonstrate a clear understanding of the reasons behind the questions - in my opinion, understanding what's going on is important as experience, and this candidate obviously has an understanding. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
71. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Support per the principal that resulted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. A good editor is a good editor, especially if they can handle chemistry. :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Seems to be an actual contributor to the project. We don't have enough. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Strong support I haven't seen him around but he has made many solid contributions and comes over as level-headed. I appreciate his candour. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Support — I trust that the tools will not be abused or mis-used, and this editor appears to have the experience to know how to use them. Canvassing was unfortunate, and hopefully will not have distorted consensus. EJF (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Administrators interact so much with articles and article disputes that I frequently oppose for not enough experience in mainspace, as all the complexities are very difficult to get your head around and uninformed administrators cause more trouble than good. Project-space is less difficult to understand and I hope that, should this be successful, Benjah goes a little slow in this regard, however I cannot fault myself supporting. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
78. Support. Been around a while, seems to know his way around, doesn't appear to be a troublemaker. No reason to oppose. --Carnildo (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - No, I must oppose - very low Wiki-space count. No indication that he candidate has any experience in admin-related tasks. Sorry, but good luck! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - no projects space edits apart from wikiprojects and this RfA. Also, with the exception of page moves, the candidate could start all of the activities he mentions in Q1. Addhoc (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per above concerns about low project space edits. ArcAngel (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Project space is the most important area for admins to be familiar with, and right now you have not proven that you are familiar with it. Get more project space contributions and if this fails (which i doubt it will) come back in a few months. Best of luck, Tiptoety ^talk 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree strongly with the idea that project-space is more important than article-space experience in admins, the reverse is true - if somebody has only ever reported vandals and done new-page patrol they are completely unprepared for dealing with POV-pushing in articles, disputes over the addition of unreliable sources, or, most importantly, interacting well with angry or hostile editors. Being an admin requires that you are a good editor and can work well with other people - most project space can teach you little about that. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose An excellent editor, but adminship is about enforcing policy, and the only way of learning it and showing knowledge of it is by participation in discussion in WT on policy talk pages, XfD, or other places where it is being discussed and enforced. I'm sure B-b can learn all this, and when he can show us he should re-apply & I expect then to support him. DGG (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   The only way? You are contending that you can't learn policy by editing articles and applying the policies to real-life situations? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   I think that gives you only a limited range. You dont learn to be a lawyer by behaving legally, or a doctor by staying in good health. DGG (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think we want Wikilawyers as administrators, what we need is people with genuine experience of applying the rules in a common-sense way to real situations. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Furthermore, applying Jimbo's adminship is no big deal and can he be trusted with the tools, the contribs to me say a resounding "yes". Adminship is not that specialised a job and can be learnt on the job too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Careful examination of this candidate's answers demonstrate an apparent lack of understanding for Wikipolicy anyway - so right off the bat we have a positive correlation between a lack of policy knowledge and nill participation in admin-related spaces. All administrators learn as they work, yes, but someone with little experience generally doesn't gain the trust of everybody. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   I can't agree with that, from my reading of his replies he seems to understand policies just as well as I do, in particular his reply about an IP blanking a BLP was something I hadn't considered before - I learned something from that response! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   What is it that I don't understand about WP policy? (There are probably plenty of things, but which things do my answers suggest I misunderstand?) Ben (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Both sides of this project/main debate are missing the real picture. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   And what is the point of just reiterating your support comment without actually clarifying your position? How exactly are we "missing the point"? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   I apologize if the above sound snarky..re-reading it may come off that way. I would just like clarification : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   I think my analogy holds, we need to know how a prospective admin would apply policy, not from his answers here, but from policy based arguments the prospective admin has made in the past in practical places. DGG (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

   No offence, but adminship is about careful use of the tools. Enforcing policy? When did that happen? Admins are not police officers! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

   I agree Kim, I would even add that admins must be able to think and judge risk. Something that is lacking today. I believe Benjah has those tools. Enforcing policy? Please, anyone can read, admins must be able to understand the difference between when to act and when not to act. Policy is NOT gospel.Thright (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

6. Oppose - very low Wikipedia-space count, which is one of the essential ways of learning Wikipedia's processes, ways of working and interaction with other users. Lradrama 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose, two-figure edit count for Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Is there anything in his answers to the questions that would fit the idea that he doesn't understand our policies? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am entitled to my standards, and if I was not already I would have moved to strong oppose due to the persistent questioning of opposers' motives by the candidates' connections. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose There isn't anythign that fits the idea that he DOES understand the polocies either. 31 wikiedits? Scary.--Dacium (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   • What about his major contributions to featured articles, and his calm and productive participation in the discussions that turned an article that was in the middle of POV wars into something stable, neutral, and accurately sourced? Doesn't that prove that he understands the policies that really matter--those that help build an encyclopedia? --Itub (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose, sorry. Very low participation in Wikipedia space. Húsönd 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose After reviewing your contributions I do not feel you have a need for the tools. --Ozgod (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose I see absolutely no evidence that this candidate has demonstrated any knowledge/expertise with the policies/procedures relavant to being an admin. I am particularly concerned about his answer to question 12. A final warning from a month ago should never be used as justication for a block today---particularly on an anonymous account.Balloonman (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    A block can easily be revoked on appeal, and protects the project from any further vandalism in the short term. It would depend on what I found when I got to the talk page. When I answered the question, I imagined that looking at the IP's contributions, I found further vandalism that had just occurred. If it is exactly the same pages being vandalised, in the same way (such as inserting exactly the same sentences as before), it's reasonable to assume it's the same person editing, who should therefore have seen the final warning the first time around. If they were a particularly rapid and prolific vandal, a block would be the better option, especially if the IP address only ever produces vandalism and no good edits. Blocking the address would unlikely be inhibiting any good edits/editors and would give the community time to undo the vandalism and try to communicate with the user.

    If the vandalism was not obviously the same person, or was just one edit, another warning, perhaps a final one, would be in order.

    You do have to balance the needs of the account or IP being blocked with the needs of the project. It's not fair to give an excessive number of warnings and final chances to vandals, but obviously it is necessary to make sure that it is only a persistent vandal you are blocking, and the block would not prevent any bona fide editors from accessing WP.

    Ben (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose on wikipedia I would like to see an admin who would know what he is doing a bit more. Your lack of participation in the "wikipedia" namespace and your contribution evidence tells me that you would have little need for the admin tools and judging by a number of other things you have failed to persuade us with your knowledge of policy that you could become a sysop that could improve wikipedia overall. AndreNatas (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose various issues discussed above make me uncomfortable trusting you with the tools currently. Sorry - not yet. If this fails (looks likely to succeed at the moment) and you run again, please do drop me a line. I'm sure that if you pay attention to some of the good-faith criticisms above, you'll sail through. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Lack of Wikipedia space involvement. Cxz111 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Contributions history makes it too difficult to discern whether this user has a good grasp of policy. TigerShark (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I agree that article edits are the most important thing for an admin, but at the same time some project-space experience is also needed, and 31 edits, most of them related to this RfA, just aren't enough. There's also very little article talk compared to number of article edits. I'll definitely consider supporting next time if there's more experience in those areas. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Wikipedia space. IF the answers to the questions were so perfect that they would take away any doubt on this ground, it still might be allright, but unfortunately, they are not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Only 49 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, shows lack of experience in admin-like areas. I do like his 4000+ edits to mainspace (I'm a big pusher of mainspace contribs), but you've got to get your Wikipedia namespace edits closer to 500 before I'll feel that you have adequate experience. Please see my admin criteria if you have any questions. Useight (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose I was emailed by a sock asking me to oppose this RfA and frankly, it made me want to support just to piss the puppeteer off. But at the end of the day, I don't want the sock to infect this RfA in either direction and as this is the kind of candidate that I normally oppose due to the very low WP experience I feel unable to support. I suggest, if this doesn't end up passing, you spend a couple of months getting wider experience. Sarah 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Excellent editor, but the lack of significant involvement in WP space functions makes me question the motivation for becoming an administrator. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose 4000 + edits to mainspace is supposed to be a strength, but it's not really very much, and I'm pushed into the oppose section by the editor's proclaimed ambition to deal with WP:3RR matters and to push WP:Etiquette. The former I'm not convinced the editor is experienced enough for and the latter suggests self-righteousness, the main source of all human conflict. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per lack of experience in dealing with other users - this relates to the talk and user talk namespaces as well as the Wikipedia space. It's one of the most necessary things in an administrator. ---Having read Sarah's explanation above, I realized that I was also canvassed through e-mail to oppose this RFA. I didn't notice that it was the same one until I had already started writing my comment here, and I certainly don't want to encourage socking and canvassing. Dekimasuよ! 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose With only 1 edit regarding policy (an AIV report), how can he be considered for adminiship ? Definitely a very good editor, but not admin material yet. Please review his edits to the wikipedia namespace, excluding wikiprojects and this RfA he has only made one edit. I think at least 1000 should be required. How can anyone be supporting this RfA even for his own good, he should not be an admin, he has never participated in a single deletion discussion, a DRV, a dispute resolving process... He is not suffering from not having admin tools, because he has only ever made 1 request for an admin to use their tools. You don't need to be an admin to move a page, or explain things to people. RfA is not about supporting people who are nice or prolific, the goal of an administrator is not to be nice or a great contributor. Jackaranga (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Seriously? You think an editor should have 1000 edits to policy space before you'd support them? I don't think I have that many even now. I certainly didn't when I stood for adminship. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I certainly didn't :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Requiring 1000 is kind of silly, but objecting to 1 is not. Dekimasuよ! 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I didn't mean 1000 edits to the policy pages, but to the pages regarding their enforcement yes, I think somewhere around that many. Jackaranga (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

24. Oppose An admin needs to have more edits in the project space to be knowledgeable in admin-type tasks. I am willing to support in the future when there are more project space edits. Captain panda 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose per his answer to question 1, combined with the low number of project space edits. Anyone can help users understand image user policy and resolve disputes, and I find it difficult to support someone who intends to engage in antivandalism work despite only having ever made one edit to AIV. Understanding the ins and outs of when to block vandals is of paramount importance to antivandalism work, and contribution to AIV is the easiest way to judge whether or not he does.--Dycedarg ж 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Weak Oppose The lack of experience in the usual admin-related areas worries me just a bit too much. Jmlk17 08:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose Not sure this user know the policy well enough to apply it as an admin. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Jackaranga - I'd rather see the user get a gist of admining before being promoted - one edit to AIV doesn't show the meta side. I suggest to the candidate that he keep WP:AN and WP:ANI on watchlist and contribute in discussions there, should he fail the RFA. Will ^(talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose; the canvassing spam predisposed me favorably towards this candidate— but not enough so I'd be able to get over the fact that this editor has absolutely no policy experience whatsoever. Come back in a few months with some mop work under the belt and I'll likely support. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose, alas, the complete lack of any projectspace experience shows that the user probably isn't ready for the tools yet. Wizardman 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending further discussion. I think Ben is a great editor and would never intentionally misuse the tools, but the lack of involvement in project space raises concerns that he might not be familiar enough with policy to handle them correctly. Naturally, learning policies and guidelines doesn't require 100 reports to WP:AIV, but I think some good answers to the questions above would help settle my concerns. I should also point out that the things he wants to do with the tools don't actually require them, and so the candidate should be encouraged to do these things even if this RfA fails. --jonny-mt 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion, as well as Wisdom's and Addhoc's. I feel very strongly that an understanding of various Wikipedia policies, especially with regard to admin actions is acceptable in lieu of "experience" in terms of WP: namespace edit counts. If Ben were granted +sysop, he can (and I would advise him to) check out Wikipedia:New admin school and familiarize himself further with the nuts and bolts of admin work. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, the WP:NAS doesn't teach a thing about policy, it only shows you how to block, not why. Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to have edited WP:V to be able to apply and interpret it. Policies are supposed to reflect what we do as editors when writing articles, so if you are an experienced article editor you actually are better-equipped to understand how to apply our polices than somebody who has little article experience, but lots of Wikipedia-space experience. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to support per further discussion and the user's answers to the questions. --jonny-mt 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, pending explanation for mention of featured article Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide in the introduction, considering only three edits to that article. I understand TimVickers has supported, but I am concerned about this trend of editors mentioning FAs at RfA if they haven't significantly contributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since that was my most recent FA, I can explain that Ben was the guy I turned to when a reviewer raised concerns about the structure image we were using in the article. Ben explained how the original image had been generated diff and produced a new image link that fixed the reviewer's concerns. I think this was a good example of how he is a productive and collaborative editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim; that resolves my concern, although I don't know Ben well enough to add support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, to clear things up, I mentioned NAD+ article as the nominator, Ben did not. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; no problem at all, it's just something I keep an eye on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Regrefully Neutral. The nomination was definitely premature. The low projectspace edits really cripple my ability to believe that you understand policy and the inner workings of Wikipedia. Your response to question one also worries me because you could be doing all of these things without the tools of adminship. I would be opposing this, but I thought the answer to question four was nicely put, and I will probably wait to see the answers to further questions before going further. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: I'm already doing the things I say I want to do in Q1. The tools will just give me more independence when it comes to, for example, moving page histories. Ben (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Per Addhoc. Also there seems to be a slightly small number of edits per month. Rudget. 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. The candidate is a great editor but needs additional experience before I can support. The low amount of projectspace involvement concerns me. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Sorry, I hate to say this but 5000 is a bit low for me. Maybe come back in a couple of months when you hit 10,000? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral - looks like a great editor but I'm unsure from the questions and the project space edits as to how much this candidate knows of WP policies and procedures. Maybe dig into Wikipedia-space and come back in a few months and I'll likely support - Alison ^❤ 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Going to have to go with Alison on this one. A good editor, will most likely be an excellent admin, but I'd rather he spend a month or so getting his feet wet in projectspace before he's given the tools. DS (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (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.