Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Benon[edit]

Final (52/28/4) Ended Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:46:55 (UTC)

Benon (talk · contribs) –

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accept self nomination Benon 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly my previous rfas can be found here.

I would like to think that since my last rfa I have tried to address some of the concerns raised on it. The one major exception to this is massive article contributions. Due to my dyslexia and even with the aid of my spellbound I still find this difficult although I have found it much easier to add a bit of information here and there or touch up an article but I don't think ill ever be writing a FA

Another *major* weakness was my spelling and grammer, whilst its not 100% perfect my use of spellbound has helped to greatly improve it and hopefully this will help to address this concern.

I would like to think I always try and remain civil and like ive said before "if you don't think your edit will improve the encyclopaedia don't press the save button" is something I always follow.

I also have a working e-mail address enabled through e-mail this user function.

My activity rate recently tailed off, this is not because I don't want to edit Wikipedia but because of some personal life issues that I had to take priority for a while. Now these have gone I am keen to get back to my normal editing levels.

Feel free to ask any additional questions on the rfa or on my talk page, I will reply to them as soon as possible


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:

For one thing vandal fighting and new page patrol is often clogged up, AIV is often heavily backlogged causing further work for non admin rc patrollers before a vandal is blocked and hopefully I can put a dent in this.

Also speedy deletion is often very over populated, and I would like to help out with keeping the backlog down.

Wikipedia:Copyright_problems does not seem to get as much admin attention as is needed either, although it is much better than it used to be I would like to help out here. I often find copyright problems on new page patrol and have some experience in dealing with these.

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

As I have said in my statement above I tend to add small bits of info across diffrent articles and tidy things up, due to the constraints of dyslexia, so I wouldn't say there's anything im super proud of, I would however like to think that every edit ive made has made Wikipedia better in some way.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:

I have been in several conflicts, I always try and keep a cool head and never hit the save button whilst annoyed or angry. Id probably go and visit Newgrounds or have cup of tea etc. and then come back with a clear head.

I was heavily involved in helping the now banned user T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), and trying to direct his energy into positive contributions whilst trying to help him control his temper. Whilst this ultimatley failed I am proud that troughtout I tried to remain impartial, helpful and civil to everyone concerned.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:

IAR means to me that if by the very letter of a policy something is preventing you from improving Wikipedia the ignore it. It should however be used sparingly and there are few situations where I cold see myself using it.

Snow means to me that process isn't preformed for process sake, and if there is *no* possibility of an unexpected outcome appearing it can be snowballed. However on the flip side process is important and snow should again be used very sparingly, for example when an attack page turns up on afd.


General comments

And a summary of Benon5's edits

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • After having a brief read through the supports I found something interesting. Supports from #10 to #14 in the supports section there are 5 supports without any comments apart from "fuck yeah" within 13 minutes, at least 3 of whom I know to be #wikipedia IRC users (as Benon himself). And this does not coincide with the time when this RFA was listed either. RFA pimping over IRC?--Konst.able 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith, I personally haven't "pimped" my rfa on irc, if someone else has it had nothing to do with me. As a side not rfa pimping is generally very frowned upon in #Wikipedia and would probably earn someone opposition!

Benon 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, didn't mean to offend or accuse you, just asking. My guess is that someone else would have mentioned it on IRC around that time though. I'm just getting more and more annoyed with RfA "votes" that have no comments other than "Support".--Konst.able 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Benon is a good editor, and based on my experiences with him, is highly unlikely to abuse the tools.--§hanel 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. DarthVader 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Michael 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good knowledge of the project. Helpful to others. Civil and considerate. Dedicated editor. A pleasure to support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Have seen this candidate around, and have never had a negative impression of him or her. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The nominee has pretty much done everything asked of him since the last RfA. A review of his contributions certainly demonstrates a need for the tools and indicates that this diligent contributor can be trusted. Agent 86 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Rama's arrow 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I have appreciated benon's common sense for quite some considerable time now, will make fine use of the tools. --Alf melmac 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Nice editor, I'll give him my support. Hello32020 01:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Chacor 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's time Jaranda wat's sup 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Naconkantari 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Interest in becoming an admin is not a crime. Benon will do fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. About fucking time. — Werdna talk criticism 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck yes! per Andrew. I mean, fine, I guess. I am not terribly impressed with your contributions, but I am willing to admit that the risk of misuse/abuse is quite low with you. Good luck! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SUPPORT! Has GREATLY improved since his last RfA. Per Werdna and CrazyRussian, it is about fucking time. 1ne 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. edit conflict Support—Meets the "why the He__ not?" criterion. Mind you, I'd never heard of the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates before—but the cause seems good and they have the sense to back off advocacy when Jimbo infinitely bans. Five times—wow—what endurance and drive! But after reading far longer than I should have & considering all the thoughts that roamed through my mind, I see nothing that would indicate that Benon (1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5) would abuse the ability to button and unbutton. Let’s make Benon an admin. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support Seriously, I see him around all the time and have always assumed he was doing admin stuff. Aside from my realisation of my ignorance, Benon is always engaging and seems to be very enthusiastic about helping build Wikipedia. I've no reservations whatsoever about trust or experience issues, so I enthusiastically support this nominination hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. "Why the hell not?" Alphachimp 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Fuck yeah support passes my criteria and it's a good oppourtunity to swear in an RFA †he Bread 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should start counting the number of "fucks" in supports... Alphachimp 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck yeah! 1ne 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fucking agree †he Bread 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support this user has come a long way since that first RfA, and is now suitable for adminship, TewfikTalk 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per Tewfik. —Khoikhoi 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support without the use of certain repeated words that I won't repeat yet again, per answers to questions. Looks like a great admin candidate. --Coredesat 05:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. support this person to be a administrator many months of good work Yuckfoo 06:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I really think benon will be a more than helpful admin. He's an excellent vandal fighter, and I feel he has proven himself trust worthy of the mop and bucket. KOS | talk 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Supported last time, will do so this time too. This user has worked diligently over many months and have displayed an understanding of Wikipedia policies. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Definitely. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everybody has an edit button, but only admins have block/delete/etc buttons. While this doesn't mean that admins shouldn't write articles, it does mean that you can't hold it against somebody on an RfA if they don't write articles much, as it just is not relevant. In addition, while he may not participate in deletion discussions much, he quite clearly does revert vandals frequently, and so a block button would be useful to him. He has a reason to need the tools and there's nothing to suggest that he'll abuse them. This user should be given adminship. --Rory096 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Has improved since last RfA! Supported! Dspradau 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - has improved a lot, a honest user. I don't really care about mainspace edits, he needs the admin tools, I'm sure about that he will never abuse them. NCurse work 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support He is a good editor and needs the admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support meets my standards, although you should remember about the mainspace.-- danntm T C 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. So what if he's had five RfAs and isn't more active than a bot? These don't indicate that he'd abuse the tools. --Keitei (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Suppoer per Keitei. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support just because a user isn't the best at being an editor doesnt'e mean he can't be a great help with admin tools to take care of all the backlogs and mundane tasks that many hate doing. --Appleboy Talk 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support (again). Bucketsofg 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. G.He 22:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support, "weakness of Users spelling and grammer" make no sense in this matter. Impressive contribution and problem solving history. Need some tools to deal with vandal, throll attacks in wiki. Mustafa Akalp 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. He should have been promoted a long time ago. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; no comment as it'll turn in to a rant in response to the oppose votes.--Andeh 20:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Per above. Seems okay, and I respect self-noms (even if 4 out of 5 times is a little over-zealous)! Charlie MacKenzie 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support — Seems like a great user, your RfAs show to me that your eager which shows to me dedication. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Failing 4 RfAs and trying again. It confounds me how there is so much requirement for main article space edits when there is clearly a legitimate reason for not having much. I've seen no strong indication in the oppose votes that this editor has ever acted in bad faith, and as such fully support. I suppose this user could be lying about dyslexia, but there is no reason to believe that. -- RM 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 0FA Support. The tools will always be less dangerous in his hands than in those of a disgruntled writer with an axe to grind.—freak(talk) 20:03, Oct. 13, 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as I did last time. BryanG(talk) 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Benon's heart is in the right place. All of my interactions with him show he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Support ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support - No reason to think the mop will be abused. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, cautiously. As others have said, I don't see a real chance of any admin abuse and I therefore support. My only reservation is the lack of major contributions. I think you'll be a great admin regardless. AuburnPilot 02:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support I have started writing this now no less than five times in the past three days, each time intending to fully outline why I feel strongly about supporting Benon... and every time I've been interrupted or got waylaid, and lost all I had previously written. So I am going to quickly say this; I completely understand the opposers, and why they feel the way they do. And, indeed, I felt the same way, until recently when I got to know Benon a lot better. Guys, if you are sitting on the fence, or dont feel strongly about your oppose, then I urge you to reconsider. You have my personal assurance Benon will be nothing but a credit to the mop. Im just sorry it took me so long to get this down! Glen 09:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose User page and some of the support comments above leads me to think the candidate may not have the maturity to be an admin. Disclaimer, I have had not contact with this editor before, this is just my initial perception. Catchpole 07:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why express your opinion if you know that you are not qualified to express it? A little research wouldn't go astray, either. — Werdna talk criticism 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the little research that I did that led to my oppose. Why discount first impressions? Catchpole 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale you provided does not appear to provide an adequete explanation for the severity of your action. Since an oppose is equivalent to 4 supports, I ask that to assist the closing bureaucrat, you take a moment to improve the quality of your entry so that it can be constructive to the candidate and reflects the best qualities of the project instead. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when?!? T REXspeak 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the nature of any supermajority system. To get 80% support, someone would need 4 supporters for every 1 opposer. —Centrx→talk • 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is having a cool userpage one of your standards? I don't think the nomniee should be held responsible for the comments of support voters. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose After looking at your last RFA and the recommendations you received there I looked at your mainspace edits, in particular editorial contributions. I find almost nothing since July 5, the end of your RFA 4: about 8 edits on two articles [1] and one editorial comment on talk pages [2]. Your vandalfighting activities are much appreciated, but if an editor points out to you that your encyclopedia building experience is lacking, that's something to take to heart. Writing a encyclopedia doesn't always involve writing publishable essays. It can also mean questioning facts and finding sources, adding quotations or engaging in discussions about facts on article talk pages (which doesn't require perfect orthography). In light of this I also find your answer to Q2 less than forthcoming. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry, but I cannot support this. It is your fifth RFA this year, and I note a lack of activity both in article editing and process space. Your activity appears to be mostly limited to a handful of vandal reverts per day, and associated warnings. In this era of semi-automatic anti-vandal tools, that really isn't saying much. >Radiant< 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose per trialsanderrors and >Radiant!<. May change to neutral in the future after more thought. Seems like the candidate's heart is in the right place. --Storkk 11:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose, a review of the candidate's contributions since the last RfA makes me agree with what Trialsanderros and Radiant say. I am surprised by the many enthusiastic supporters, though, so perhaps there is something I am missing here? Kusma (討論) 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Radiant's concerns are valid. I don't see why Benon needs the tools so bad. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Radiant - I think there should be a policy limit on the number of RfA per year people can try for. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per concerns listed by trialsanderrors and Radiant. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per trialsanderrors and Radiant. The relatively light editing pace since the last RfA has done little to allay my concerns regarding inexperience. Xoloz 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per trialsanderrors. Cynical 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per trialsanderrors and Radiant. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I see no use of you needing the tools. Besides reverting vandalism, almost all of which has been assisted by a automated browser or by popups, you have done very little besides that. After skimming through your contributions I saw no participation in any Xfds, very minimal edits in anything else. Are there any areas that you participate in besides vandalism that and admin needs to be knowledgeable in? T REXspeak 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose; very sporadic article editing (only 160 article namespace edits in 3 months, of which nearly all are simple reverts), and the need for adminship worries me. 5 RfAs is a bit too much, per above. Ral315 (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support a little concerned per lack of actual encyclopaedia-building edits, but I don't see why not to trust you with admin tools otherwise.--Konst.able 11:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my growing concerns I have switched from my "weak support" to oppose. I do not see that it is necessary to be a brilliant WP:1FA article editor to be an admin; however, as others have mentioned, apart from reverts, Benon seems to have almost no article edits at all! An admin who is not at all experienced outside maintenence tasks sounds like a bad idea to me. And... 5th RfA in one year??? A bit too eager.--Konst.able 10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Radiant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose as failing my criteria, and not enough article building displayed (which is and important background for an admin to have). I'd like to add that I'm not a big fan of misleading "joke" templates at the top of userpages; wikipedia is not myspace. Themindset 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - 5 RFAs in a year? And the first 4 have failed? That looks to me like bad judgement - the last thing an admin can afford. Sorry, but no. Moreschi 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Moreschi. He brings up a good point. If your first RfA failed, you should have waited at least 2 months. If it failed again, wait 4 months, and so on. 5 RfA's in one year doesn't show good judgment or understanding of RfA guidelines. Nishkid64 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per trialsanderrors, Radiant. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per trialsanderrors & Radiant. --WinHunter (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Moreschi. Too eager. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per trialsanderrors and Radiant. --Interiot 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Radiant. --kingboyk 10:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per all above. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose- Anyone who has 5 RfAs in ten months does not show good judgment. Also per trialsanderrors and Radiant!  Jorcoga  03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, editcount points to use of Wikipedia as a chatroom (1651 edits to articles and 2395 to user talk pages).  Jorcoga  11:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of making baseless accusations, you should probably take the 20 seconds to look. Nearly every edit of the candidate to the user talk namespace is a warning. --Rory096 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will do that in the future but my oppose stands.  Jorcoga  05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per above. (5 RfAs in that little time? Really? This discussion shouldn't even be possible right now.) Wryspy 04:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose lack of mainspace edits & should've spent time gaining more experience. 5 RfAs in that short time does show a bit of poor judgement. --Arnzy (talk • contribs)
  28. Oppose sorry but I have to agree with the users above; 5 RFA's in one year is a little ridiculous. You should show more patience and adherence to RFA guidelines. Also, a little more article building would not hurt your nomination. Wikipediarules2221 23:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral while you admit that you have not made any major article contributions, I will make an exception for that. Although I think you are a little eager to become an admin, this being your fourth self nomination. I think that you should wait until another editor nominates you again. T REXspeak 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, I offered to nominate him but he declined, saying he already had other nominators. – Chacor 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have nomimated him heartily. Should have left him a note to that effect.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As would I. 1ne 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I'm not sure it would be fair to oppose over this, but there's nothing about dyslexia that prevents you from using the shift key. Opabinia regalis 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - did you improve? Why yes. Based on your activity rate and statement though, I can't support you yet. I'm sorry. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Switching to Neutral right now, due to his spelling issues, although in respect I'm not against his dyslexia. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Neither do I concur in the reasoning of every oppose but nor do I concur in the reasoning of many of the supports. Most relevantly, I am quite confident that Benon is sufficiently possessed of a deliberative demeanor and cordial disposition as to be altogether unlikely to abuse the tools, and I'm relatively confident that his judgment is sufficiently fine that he would not misuse the tools (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting in an area with the workings of which he is less-than-conversant), but I'm not sure that I can reach the latter conclusion with a level of confidence that would permit me to conclude that the net effect on the project of Benon's becoming an admin would be positive (that, after all, is my RfA standard) to a nearly certain degree, and so I must reprise my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon3 neutral, in part in view of the same concern I expressed there, viz., that I do fear that Benon's dyslexia might well tend exorbitantly to encumber his communicating with other editors whom he may, qua admin, encounter, especially in view of the en.Wikipedia community's comprising many non-native English speakers (of course, given my prolixity, I ought not ever to pronounce as to the parsability of another's prose). Joe 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Benon5&oldid=1147969023"