Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bennyboyz30002

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

[edit] Bennyboyz3000

Final (0/5/0); Ended 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC); Scheduled to end 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bennyboyz3000 (talk · contribs) - Hello to everyone! My name is Ben, and I'm here to request the no-big-deal, over-rated, not-a-badge mop. I've been here since November 2006 (but had been editing as an anonymous editor for about 3 weeks beforehand). Over the time I've managed to make a hobby out of it, learned an endless torrent of new facts, made new friends and acquaintances and then again had my bad days, which I frankly admit to as appalling. I regularly participate regularly in vandal cleanup. Basically I'm here to request the buttons in a positive light, which I would like to keep this RfA in regardless of the outcome. I come here only with the best of intentions for the project, please don't judge me on first glance. I thank in advance all those contributors who offer constructive or supportive comments :) --Ben^chat 12:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my request, as the community obviously doesn't accept me and I doubt my standing will improve. --Ben^chat 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Handling requests at WP:AIV (aside faster blocking of obvious, persistent and appropriately warned vandals whilst reviewing recent changes) and gradually expanding to CSDs (only the obviously inappropriate ones), clearing such backlogs and participating in whatever calls me or presents itself needing a sysop's attention.

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

A: I did a lot of backlog clearing during the AfC drive, and I was proud of that. My work in patrolling recent changes/vandal reverting (albeit under threat of being replaced by bots in the not too distant future), I believe, is an ongoing help to the community here. I've learned to appreciate the humor of editors that present nonconstructive edits.

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 have only really had one "conflict" as such - regarding my block log entry. This was done after a series of errors on my part (and some unfortunate circumstances)- I will try to explain the series of events:

1. I created the All-nighter article, and it grew substantially over a month or two.
2. It was put up for AfD, and as I was confused over talk page discussion, and removed the notice (stupidly) believing the nom to be false.
3. It got deleted against consensus as the notice was not present so editors were unaware of the debate
4. I was unaware of the deletion debate myself, and warned Sandstein thinking it was a random (new) editor deleting content, and warned him using TW appropriately.
5. He then warned me, and I warned him, and a somewhat frivolous and playful saga of warnings ensued.
6. Whammo, he blocked me. I kicked up a fuss and was back online soon.
7. I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and made a perhaps over-emphasized claim about him lying (which I still stand by). Red the log if you want.
8. I made some curt but polite closing comments (Notably the AA Award).

In future, I will just walk away from such debates, and try to be less desperado.

I'll make it easy for my opposers now - here is nasty thing you'll burn me alive for: [1]. I'll explain myself - A very close relative died of a heart attack about 2 weeks earlier, and I vented some of my anger here. Obviously normally I would have no problem with such issues at any other time, and I'm over the incident (whilst having all regret for what I did). Without trying to detract from the blame, I didn't post my angry thoughts on other's pages.

I would like to point out that these incidents were in the past and although my handling of them could have been better, I am well prepared to use the sysop tools appropriately, and will not use them if under considerable stress. Take note I have made no attempt to hide these incidents, have tried to make amends and learn from my mistakes.

Optional Question from Jamessugrono
When looking at your edit counts, a majority of edits have been in mainspace, rather than talk pages. In addition, more edits have been made in user talk pages, rather than article talk pages. Please explain why this has occurred.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) A: I guess it's just the way I edit, it's my choice of proliferation. I guess a major contributing factor would have been the many communication sagas and vandalism warnings. I also have a tendency towards the theory of being bold with editing and collaborating only when it presents itself as necessary for the article's development. I think I have been involved in a fair amount of discussion regarding articles, although as of late I have been straying away from mainspace content editing and getting more into the janitorial behind-the-scenes side of things. --Ben^chat 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See Bennyboyz3000's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Bennyboyz3000: Bennyboyz3000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Just explianing my first RfA, I made that request when my account was about 20 days new, and I had no idea whatsoever about the appropriate policies, formalities and requirements. --Ben^chat 12:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bennyboyz3000 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• I had a hopeful feeling about this which just got demolished. Don't worry - I'll withdraw soon :( --Ben^chat 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. My confidence is not boosted by a block, albeit short, for disruption only in mid-August. If this happened if you were an admin, the fallout would have been much worse. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   As I have said, this block was completely unjustified and was in my opinion an admin simply abusing his powers for non-neutral control. Cool down blocks are a no-no. I would be more worried if I placed such a block (obviously not possible and I would never do it), not received one --Ben^chat 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Also I would like to point out my thousands of good edits, rather than focusing on a couple of negative instances. I'm sure we could dig this caliber of stuff up on everyone, I've just put it out in the open. --Ben^chat 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I know I keep rabbiting on about this, but it had nothing to do with vandalism or the like (only an altercation with the wrong guy), and I'm well versed in appropriate policies - this block was baloni. And what is constructive here? --Ben^chat 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I also don't trust you after this exchange. You seem to think that only you're right and unwilling to acknowledge mistakes. If you were spamming any user, an admin can use common sense. And describing the block as boloni is quite immature as well. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   For want of a better word - what I'm trying to vocalize is that I made a series of mistakes and that it is in the past. The block goes against policy is what I should have said --Ben^chat 12:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ben, some policies can be ignored when using commons sense. You seem to not understand that WP:IAR is a founding principle of Wikipedia. And stuff like "The way that becoming a sysop is so difficult, I think everyone with more than 12 months and 5,000 edits should automatically be one." on your userpage makes bureaucrats cry. The are some users that have 5000 edits and more than 12 months experience... but are trolls, edit-warriors, and other nasty types that should never get the buttons. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Geez, I honestly have no memory of saying that. Must have been months ago - I go against that in loads of RfA's - Siva1979's just the other day for one. --Ben^chat 13:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   You said it exactly one month ago. Daniel 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

2. This and the nomination statement strongly turned me off. Sorry, I don't think you're ready yet. Furthermore, your attitude in the above conversation was not something which reflects on you well, and per Maxim's 12:43 comment, I don't believe your attitude towards criticism is ideal for an administrator at this stage, and I worry that you may be the type of administrator to maintain grudges per this. Daniel 12:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per But I never will be. Because those who vote believe every sysop should be meticulously perfect. Honestly, mate, this is equivalent to biting the hand that feeds you, combined with a serious perception of sour grapes. I don't like people like you being administrators on Wikipedia, because your attitude reflects badly on us as a project. Daniel 13:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I went back exactly one month, and picked five random edits of yours. This isn't confidence-inspiring, nor this. Daniel 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   ... Daniel 13:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Take NO notice of what I put on my userpage. Unless I quote it, it's just random musings. --Ben^chat 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Anything you do on Wikipedia will be taken notice of when you apply for adminship. Daniel 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Blanking the content doesn't change the fact that you have expressed your opinions and they are not the type that I find desirable in an administrator. Daniel 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not trying to hide anything, but it's obviously not helping me in other areas to have outdated statements there if it gets picked up here. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, and once again I state that the tools won't be used in discussions like this. They will be put to use performing mediocre tasks which I think I have demonstrated I can do :) --Ben^chat 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Those statements were added by you exactly one month ago - hardly outdated. Daniel 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3. My main interaction was when I was accused of "policy breaches" for using a templates (borrowed from another user) on my user page to protect it (after having had it moved) and to add an 'online' 'offline' which I felt was useful (and just looked cool). The edit are from here to here on the user's sand box the edits were made after a discussion involving them editing a user subpage of mine. I felt that the attitude was not constructive, if a comment asking about it had been posted on my talk page fine, but adding a claim of policy breach to your own sub page rather than notifying someone about it is petty and not behaviour expected of an admin. If they had had the power at the time I would almost have expected may sub page to be deleted. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:15, October 5, 2007}}

   What you did was deny other users their right to use templates you created and released under the GFDL - then including a complex anti-copy and deletion system --Ben^chat 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I have templates in my userspace which have anti-copy features to prevent impersonation. The edit summary for the above comment doesn't do your candidacy any favours here. Daniel 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   What I did was stop someone from moving my userpage (happened once) of impersonating me, (repeat attempts by one individual, including copying my userpage). I did not deny anyone the right to use it, I just made it enough hassle that a passing vandal wouldn't bother, if you had asked I would have happily helped you set it up yourself. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oooh, POINTy... Daniel 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Unhelpful and disgusting. Mannafredo 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Apologies, however, I don't trust you with the tools that an admin is given. Also, your exchange with Maxim above made you seem a lot more "desperado" than someone who refers to administrator privilege as a "no-big-deal, over-rated, not-a-badge mop". Apologies for any perceived attack in the previous statement. I also wish to highlight, as has been previously, your apparent immaturity in regards to language. You seem too immature, and insecure to wield tools which can be easily abused. Not to say that sysops never abuse thier powers, but stopping it here is the best prevention. Sorry - James Sugrono_{Contributions} 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Reserving judgement based on response to question. Oppose - see aboveJames Sugrono_{Contributions} 12:53, 5 October 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.