→Neutral: Agree with Orlady |
Orange Suede Sofa (talk | contribs) →Neutral: strawman |
||
Line 191:
#:Considering the history of RFA participants who have used various quantitative rules (such as minimum number of months as a registered user, number of edits, number of edits in article space, number of GAs or FAs, etc.) to decide whether or not to support a candidate, it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for a candidate to ask what rule(s), if any, a particular user is applying when they state their objections or reservations. One reason why this question is worth asking: If prospective candidates know that many !voters feel that a person must have been block-free for a certain number of months in order to become an admin, editors are unlikely to seek adminship until they have a block-free record of that duration. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 17:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
#::Gotta agree with Orlady here, I'm not seeing the problem with Binksternet's question to Kevin. What is Kevin's opinion?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
#:::I'm not Kevin, but as an observer I read Binksternet's question as a [[strawman]]. Kevin made no statement whatsoever regarding length of time without a block, only stating that the recent blocks were worrisome. Yet the response(s) turned into a discussion of a criterion that Kevin did not even bring up. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Orange Suede Sofa|<font color="DarkGreen">Orange Suede Sofa</font>]]</span> ([[User talk:Orange Suede Sofa|talk]]) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 22:37, 14 March 2013
(talk page) (34/27/5); Scheduled to end 03:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
Binksternet (talk · contribs) - It's our privilege to present for your consideration, Binksternet. With more than 92,000 edits since he joined in 2007, Binksternet is a seasoned content creator who consistently exhibits sound judgement. He has made significant contributions to 4 featured articles and 26 good articles, and continuously elevates the quality of articles spanning diverse topics. Binksternet is even-keeled, rational, intelligent, patient and decisive; all qualities that would constitute an effective administrator.
KillerChihuahua 18:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- MrX 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. I love Wikipedia; I think the idea of a free encyclopedia was a turning point in human society, comparable to the development of language, of writing, of the printing press and the internet. I spend a lot of time helping maintain or increase article quality, and I have gained a great deal of experience in my 5.5 years here. I also keep in contact with the culture: I took part in the West Coast Wikimedia Tenth Anniversary Wikiconference in San Francisco, I went on a wiki meetup to Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay, and I rode bikes and took photos with Almonroth and others during the WikiLovesMonuments meetup in San Francisco. You can rely on this: I am a solid supporter of the wiki.
More to the point, I feel that I can bring my talents to bear as an administrator. I am a well-rounded person with a great many interests, coupled with an ability to study a situation and quickly gather a sense of the main currents. This helps me grasp what is going on in content or personality disputes; who is the NPOV violator, who is the activist, who is the instigator. This helps me ferret out the fabrications, too. I have spotted a few hoaxes and sockpuppets during the last few years. As well, I have thick skin from my decades of working in the field of professional audio. I will not get hot under the collar or fall apart if questioned closely, insulted or accused. I purposely step into some heated discussions that come to various noticeboards because I feel that I can add an objective viewpoint and thereby help restore a focus on policy and article improvement. If I am given the tools I will work diligently and conscientiously to serve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would like to extend my regular anti-vandalism practice to AIV and RFPP. From my history of edit warring during 2008–2011 I know very much what edit warring looks like, so I can bring the sort of "it takes a thief" insight to 3RRN. I would like to help sort OTRS requests. I can process SPI filings. The BLPN should always have multiple admin eyeballs on it. I can help with COIN issues. All of these processes I would enter carefully and cautiously as a new mop-holder. With more experience leading to increased confidence, I might start closing AfDs and RfCs.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am most proud of the articles I have created or improved to featured status, especially "We Can Do It!" which was a surprising discovery of a little known and misunderstood historiography, and Santa Maria de Ovila which I greatly expanded from the Spanish article on the same subject, taking new photographs to add flavor. My Google-Fu is strong; I am able to find some pretty good sources when others are not. I am happy when I find that a potential article on an obvious topic has slipped between the cracks. Examples of my article creation of this nature include aerial torpedo, kill zone, draft-card burning, aircraft camouflage, Bomber Mafia, The Woman's Bible, Grotrian-Steinweg and more that can be seen at my user page listing articles that I started.
The creation of articles might be considered among the more glamorous work on Wikipedia, but I have plenty of experience in rolling up my sleeves and digging into thankless jobs. About 25,000 of my 92,000 edits are from anti-vandalism patrolling—Twinkle reversions and user warnings. I have more than 8,000 pages on my watchlist; my typical start to the day involves sipping coffee and scanning the watchlist to see if there was disruption or vandalism. Back in 2008 I organized a sequence of disambiguation pages from Mark I to Mark XIX because I found these to be a jumbled confusion. More recently I have worked at WP:SPI to reduce the disruption of sockpuppeteers such as HarveyCarter, Fanoftheworld, Knispel and Youtubek. I participate in many of Wikipedia's noticeboards, and a heated discussion at one of them led me to a very lengthy and challenging process of collaborating with members of the Aviation WikiProject on the Coandă-1910 "jet" airplane article, first to answer the assertions of a few Romanian editors who held a minor position (and wished to make it major), and then to help bring the article up to GA status. I have participated in GAN backlog drives as a reviewer and I served as one of four judges on the August 2012 Core Contest, assisting Casliber, Brianboulton and Steven Walling in reviewing 21 articles. I took part in identifying problems and cleaning up after Marshallsumter's massive copyright violations and disruptive articles. I led the drive to correct all of Legolas2186's hoaxes and fabricated references; my involvement there was recognized in a Daily Dot article about the hoaxes.
- A: I am most proud of the articles I have created or improved to featured status, especially "We Can Do It!" which was a surprising discovery of a little known and misunderstood historiography, and Santa Maria de Ovila which I greatly expanded from the Spanish article on the same subject, taking new photographs to add flavor. My Google-Fu is strong; I am able to find some pretty good sources when others are not. I am happy when I find that a potential article on an obvious topic has slipped between the cracks. Examples of my article creation of this nature include aerial torpedo, kill zone, draft-card burning, aircraft camouflage, Bomber Mafia, The Woman's Bible, Grotrian-Steinweg and more that can be seen at my user page listing articles that I started.
- 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: From 2008 to 2011 I was too combative, guilty of edit warring. In that period I was blocked six times for edit warring and once for disruptive editing.
For the TLDR crowd, this box contains my personal assessment of my block log. The last block was 16 months ago. —Binksternet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The guide for RFAs suggests that 12 months of block-free editing is sufficient to show improvement. More than that, I have purposely throttled back from my previous combative style. The complete lack of blocks in 2012 demonstrates the success of the effort.
- I purposely step into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki. Looking only at my contributions in the first quarter of 2012, the following examples can be found:
- Because of WP:NOR violations, I engaged IP 174.98.158.112 in discussion and brought the very persistent editor to 3RRN with the result that he was blocked five times. I initiated a Check User investigation on Geoffrey100 which delivered up several socks. Due to Paul123.123 looking for someone to help him file a lawsuit against a BLP subject, I started an ANI discussion which put some more admin eyeballs on the problem. I nominated for deletion Success of D-Day which was deleted. I pushed back against Tomticker5 at Talk:Gustave Whitehead to assist other aviation editors in protecting the mainstream viewpoint. I continued serving as article referee at Steinway & Sons to protect against insults from competitors and puffery from Steinway agents. I kept tabs on Talk:Swiftboating to track NPOV progress. I jumped in to help at RSN regarding Ugg boots edit warring. I warned and advised Gregory Goble regarding his misconduct at Cold fusion but he ended up getting indef'ed. I was integral to the questioning of article ownership and egregious synthesis at Talk:Militant atheism, which led to its effective deletion (a redirect, actually.) I started an ANI discussion about incivility at Men's rights, which led to a topic ban for the violator. I kept in contact with Phoenix79 regarding POV changes to Bose Corporation and related articles. I tried to sort through the nationalist editors at Talk:Erich von Manstein. I brought the BLP Madonna (entertainer) article to Featured article review because of severe citation fabrication problems traceable to Legolas2186—consensus determined the biography should be delisted. Because of IP-hopping socks, I realized that Arch1p1elago needed to be investigated for sockpuppetry. I spent a bunch of time fielding questions at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I defended and upheld the scholarly position at Talk:Pro-life feminism. I played umpire at Talk:Imidacloprid and Imidacloprid effects on bees. I discovered that Penguinluver1431 should be blocked as a sock. I tried to mediate opposing camps at Talk:Biodynamic agriculture. I nominated Dissolve the box for deletion—it was merged. Sadly, I found that Charlesquebec was a sockpuppet. I researched the topic to answer nationalistic editors at Carlos Gardel. I found a confusing collection of socks and filed an SPI report, getting them blocked for BLP violations at Harvey Whittemore. I discovered Baxe to be a sockpuppeteer.
- Despite all of these heated interactions in 2012, I kept my cool (and my focus) and helped to solve a lot of thorny problems. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 4. You say you'd like to work more on AfD in the future. Can you look at the following AfDs - one, two, three, and clearly explain what action you would personally take as a closing admin, and why?
- A: Regarding Oxagile (#1), I would have closed as delete because the keep !votes were clearly from the company's supporters, and their arguments were not based on policy. The delete !votes argued successfully that the company was non-notable. Regarding MattyBraps (#2), I would have closed it as keep; many of the policy-based !votes were saying how close of a call it was, but I thought that the argument for (barely) meeting WP:GNG was sufficient to keep, despite the failure to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Regarding Evan Kosiner (#3), I would have closed as keep because the edit history shows the article was completely rewritten during the AfD, using the two best sources. The rewrite meant that the strongest delete votes were answered. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Questions from MONGO
- 5 You see a complaint on AN/I by an IP that claims a named editor is POV pushing at an article you have previously significantly edited. What do you do?
- A: Because I was previously involved in the article I would offer my viewpoint at the ANI discussion but I would not use the bit. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- 6 Someone posts a request for page protection on an article you have previously edited significantly. There is no evidence of vandalism, only evidence of a conflict dispute. What do you do?
- A This is another question of WP:INVOLVED. I would not protect the article; instead I would alert another admin if it seemed that quick response was needed. I might offer my viewpoint as an involved editor at the RPP entry but I would not act on it or close it. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- 7 There is a complaint of a 3RR violation by an editor you have previously had a content dispute with. The article in question is not one you have previously ever edited, and the diffs indicate that the editor definitely violated 3RR. What do you do?
- A: Again, WP:INVOLVED is the operational guideline. I might offer my viewpoint at the 3RRN discussion but I would not use the bit. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additional question from TParis
- 8. This is definitely an optional question since I've already opposed and am unlikely to change (unlikely but not impossible). I'd also be upset if someone used the option not to answer as a reason to oppose (since I am stressing it is optional). That said, should Marco Rubio include a section, or should an article exist, about Watergate 2013? Follow on question: You've never contributed to Marco Rubio and you notice there is an edit war to remove the abundantly well-cited information about Watergate 2013. Would you get involved as an editor or as an admin, and in what way?
- A: The first question is not related to being an administrator. It looks like it is about Marco Rubio drinking water from a Poland water bottle during his rebuttal to the state of the union address. If that's the case, then I don't think an article should exist on the fairly trivial matter. I think it should be mentioned at Rubio's biography that he was mocked in the media for this, but the mention should be as brief as possible. The second question applies to the admin bit: if I was not involved with the topic and there was an edit war, I would get involved as an admin, not an editor. Escalating admin action might be the best route, starting with a warning on the article talk page. I would warn individual users as necessary, declare on the article talk page that the article was under discretionary sanctions if appropriate, protect the page if needed, and block users if the encyclopedia required that higher level of protection, and if the users were not ones with which I had previously been in conflict. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 9. This is a follow on from my question 4. In each of the three AfDs I listed, a participant takes exception to your closing rationale, stating politely that they are right and you are wrong. What would you do? If you would write something, can you clarify exactly where and what words you would write? A follow on : Suppose the replies were less than polite and called you a Nazi, a troll or a free speech oppressor? What would you do then?
- A: I might expand upon my closing rationale to the complaining users, and if they persisted I would invite them to take the concern to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If they used insulting language aimed at me I would gauge whether the insult was worth responding to—perhaps it was just a venting of frustration that I could simply ignore. If the insult was especially bad, I would ask them to keep from doing so and indicate they were violating the WP:No personal attacks policy. Regardless of the insult I would try to assess and answer their real concerns. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you write out the specific response you would give? For example : "Hi 'X'. I'm sorry consensus didn't go your way but I can't do anything about it. Have a nice life." What I'm trying to do here is seeing precisely how you'd respond to conflict. Same applies to Q10 below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The specific response from me would be different in each case. It would generally go something like, "I understand your concerns at the AfD to be of this nature: (description). If that is the case, then here is a little more detail about why I closed the AfD the way I did: (detail). If you are not satisfied that I followed proper procedure at the AfD you may take the issue to WP:Deletion review. Thank you." Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you write out the specific response you would give? For example : "Hi 'X'. I'm sorry consensus didn't go your way but I can't do anything about it. Have a nice life." What I'm trying to do here is seeing precisely how you'd respond to conflict. Same applies to Q10 below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- A: I might expand upon my closing rationale to the complaining users, and if they persisted I would invite them to take the concern to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If they used insulting language aimed at me I would gauge whether the insult was worth responding to—perhaps it was just a venting of frustration that I could simply ignore. If the insult was especially bad, I would ask them to keep from doing so and indicate they were violating the WP:No personal attacks policy. Regardless of the insult I would try to assess and answer their real concerns. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 10. Assume this appeared on your talk page and was addressed to you. How would you respond?
- A: As above, I would try to answer the real concerns that were embedded in the insulting language, while ignoring the insults. I would tell the user to read the guide to being unblocked so that they could follow the proper method for restoring their user privileges. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I might say something like, "Your response here is not helping you to make the changes you seek on Wikipedia. First, you need to restore your user privileges. Please go to WP:GAB and read the instructions. After your username is unblocked, you will need to engage editors on the article talk page and gain consensus for your desired changes." I would also temporarily block the IP for block evasion, with the aim of bringing the discussion back to the blocked editor's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- A: As above, I would try to answer the real concerns that were embedded in the insulting language, while ignoring the insults. I would tell the user to read the guide to being unblocked so that they could follow the proper method for restoring their user privileges. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additional question from Little Green Rosetta
- 11. You mention one of your desired areas of using the bit is in the vandalism arena. When is it acceptable to specifically label an edit as vandalism? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Binksternet: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Binksternet can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Absolutely, glad to support. I constantly have to keep reminding myself that Binksternet is not already an administrator. Time to change that. Kurtis (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Resounding support as co nom. Here is someone truly committed to our collective efforts toward building a great encyclopedia. Binksternet comes equipped with plenty of clue and will make us a fine admin. - MrX 04:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Generally clueful, no reason to think he'll abuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support When this went live? — ΛΧΣ21 04:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Delighted to be an early supporter. I have seen this editor around and am sure they will use the extra buttons for the good of all. Jusdafax 04:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- It's clear (s)he'll be very helpful to WP with the mop. Greengreengreenred 04:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Trust the nominator; it's nice to see a nominee who is upfront about his past and who has turned things around. NW (Talk) 04:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support, Good luck Tazerdadog (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - experienced user and has great contributions. No concerns at all. T4B (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
SupportMediran (t • c) 09:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)- This user has both supported and opposed this candidacy. I have temporarily indented both votes, and informed the user to pick one vote to stick with. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed I forgot to strikethrough this !vote. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support A major content creator. Has done great work. Have worked with him on articles like Bomber Mafia, George Kenney and Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't always agree, but he is a pleasure to argue with. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support had some help with a matter, and was delt with accordingly thanks to Binksternet. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Very sensible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - While it is apparent that his passion for WP has resulted in him going a little too far in the past, I also feel like he has moved beyond those problems and would use the mop wisely in the future. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- As Wehwelt points out below, some of these issues are as recent as Jan 13 (less than two months ago) and some others are only about 6 months old.--v/r - TP 14:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- It might be wise to review the thread that Wehwelt is apparent referring to: Talk:Richard_Nixon#Comment from December 2012. I certainly don't see any attacks or rudeness, but I do see some WP:OWNership on the part of Wehwalt. - MrX 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- As Wehwelt points out below, some of these issues are as recent as Jan 13 (less than two months ago) and some others are only about 6 months old.--v/r - TP 14:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per NuclearWarfare.--В и к и T 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support A valuable Wikipedian with a strong orientation toward content creation. I have often encountered them at AfD and other places, and have found them to be helpful and clueful; in fact I assumed they were already an admin. I'm surprised to see so many blocks in their past, but I note that all of them seem to arise from excessive passion over content; I don't see any blocks for personal attacks which would concern me more. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Mine is not a reluctant or tentative support, but for the record, just wanted to provide some basic questions to the candidate (above) to help alleviate any fears or suspicions and as a sort of series of reminders. Fully satisfied that candidate is smart enough not to abuse the tools or the position.--MONGO 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I came across Binksternet some time back when working on Madonna (entertainer) and there's no doubt he shows passion, commitment and determination. The answers to the questions show he understands basic policy and how to defuse tricky situations. While I appreciate where the "oppose" !voters are coming from, my take on this situation is that he straightaway put his hands up and said "Yup, I was wrong". That's a good test of character. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I feel the same way about his actions after the warning.--v/r - TP 18:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. A good editor who I believe will use the tools wisely. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I have had interactions with him on several articles. I found him to be knowledgeable and I had no problems working with him; I would agree, as one states above, he has "passion, commitment and determination". Kierzek (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I seem to run across Binksternet rather often. I have seen him reverting vandalism and POV-pushing, ferreting out sockpuppets, engaging in talk-page discussions, creating new content, contributing to DYK, removing citations to non-RS sources, and communicating with users he's intersected with. In my judgement, he understands WP policy and guidelines, shows good judgment, and is thoughtful in his user communications (one example: [1]). He's also consistently productive (where does he find the time?), which is an asset in a sysop. I believe his record over the last year indicates that he has internalized Wikipedia's rules of engagement and will not repeat the behaviors that led to blocking in the past. I perceive that his work on articles about political topics is motivated by a desire to build and maintain a quality encyclopedia, and he is generally effective in doing so. Not all of us have his courage and fortitude to wade into controversial topics about which many people are passionate -- and about which most of his have opinions that we can't always disguise. IMO, the criticisms of his recent work that have been raised in the "Oppose" column should be chalked up to the logic that (1) these articles are minefields and (2) if you walk through minefields often enough, sooner or later a mine will explode in your face. People who are brave enough to walk through minefields should not be punished for making an occasional misstep. I believe he can be trusted with the broom and the mop -- and I predict that he will shoulder a good chunk of the admin workload. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Suppprt I've worked with Binksternet on a number of articles, and think that they would make a good admin. The responses to the questions above are excellent and indicate a good understanding of the norms which apply to how the admin tools should be used. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Need more writers and less patrollers. I don't agree with him on some things (seems to endorse the ban the not of the body school of Wiki). That said, the guy is flipping smart and a polymath. And we have recently elected some rather weak lumpkins.TCO (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Plus I really like the comment about the "takes a thief". That he thought of it and expressed it.TCO (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I think this editor knows Wikipedia and himself well enough to stay clear of using admin powers in any situation where he is involved or strongly opinionated, which is the main concern when a valuable editor with strong opinions comes before RfA. RayTalk 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Every experience I've had with this user has been great and memorable. As others have already mentioned, Binksternet has a reputation for being experienced, knowledgeable, thoughtful, fair, balanced and productive. This is everything one could want in an admin and more. Judging by the quality of the opposes, I would say Binksternet is a good choice for moving Wikipedia forward. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support, though it unfortunately looks like this RfA will struggle to get up. I've seen him around a lot, always been pretty impressed by his comments and I actually assumed he was an admin. I was surprised by his block log, but it seems to me like he's learned a lot from it and I highly doubt he will ever get in position of being blocked again, whether this RfA is successful or not. Looking up through some of the supports as I type, I think I'm basically trying to say what Orlady did, though I'm obviously not doing as eloquent or thorough a job of it. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I have interacted with Binks in the past. And there have been times we have disagreed, leaving me frustrated. But when I went back to review the conversation, I came to the conclusion that I'm just a lunkhead at times. Even in the disagreements, there will always be something to learn. I don't have to agree with everything Binks says or does, but I believe s/he is an asset to the community. S/he is a strong supporter of ensuring neutrality. When articles are in trouble or there is a dispute, s/he often jumps in and does a copyedit and cleanup. S/he also spends time sourcing articles to help a troubled article. If something is broken, s/he fixes it. I think s/he should be commended for the reform shown over the past what was it? 16 months? I have no concerns that would lead me to opposing at this time. I believe the tools would be used to benefit the project. Thanks for tossing your hat in the ring. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. I've seen the candidate around, and have liked what I've seen. I don't expect perfection in an admin, and think he has matured enough to be trusted with the mop. Miniapolis 13:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Demonstrating a temperament that is incompatible with being an administrator and then changing his ways and spending sixteen months showing it is a Very Good Thing. It shows self-control (unlikely to misuse the tools) and makes him particularly well-suited for understanding and dealing with editors who are doing now what he did then. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Support It would be good to see more of this sort of editor wearing the Admin badge. We need people like Binksternet right now as Wikipedia faces the problems of having an increasing number of editors who have had enough of what they see as a disconnect between the workers and the bosses that wield the power around here. It happens to every corporation as it grows, and it has happened here. Binksternet is a passionate man who is willing to stand for what he believes and he is willing to fight for it. He is honest and sincere. But most importantly to me as I consider his "promotion" is the fact that he would not lose sight of the frustrations of what I call the worker bees, people like me. I'd also like to add that as a woman myself, I have found Binksternet to be a strong supporter of fairness in editing articles that deal with woman's issues and concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I think that Binksternet will be a fine admin, he has been in the thick of it and knows right from wrong. He is mature enough to know what is expected of him in the new role and will soon find his niche. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support A fine Wikipedian who for a long time now has demonstrated the smarts, skills and resilience we need in admins. Condescending slurs in the oppose section, e.g. about "temperament" and "personality", only serve to strengthen my support, per Binks's answers to the questions and also per Guy Macon, Viriditas, Orlady, MONGO, Sarek, Nomoskedasticy, Jusdafax et al. Writegeist (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Late but strong support by the nominator, who would have been first if she hadn't been out sick! KillerChihuahua 21:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Recalling my experience with this editor at the article on BP leaves me very discouraged. In that article, the editor made a point of repeatedly edit-warring with multiple editors to keep in negative coatrack material about a living person, unduly insinuating this corporate executive was solely responsible for that company's environmental troubles. Here are the reverts in question: ([2] [3] [4] [5]). Those edit also included efforts to undermine the company's pro-environmental activities on other fronts such as climate change, which had already been edit-warred over a bit earlier ([6] [7]).--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- My take on the diffs supplied is that Binksternet, rather than blindly reverting per a common or garden edit war, was trying to reach a suitable compromise in the lead of BP and provide a neutral point of view to avoid putting undue weight on the criticism of its environmental measures, providing (what I assume is) a more neutral source in the Daily Telegraph. I also see his subsequent endorsement of including the Texas City Refinery explosion in the lead on talk, which suggests he's not inclined to support a pro-BP or pro-environment view. So I think things are a little bit more subtle than you suggest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The main diff TDA points to here shows me composing new text for the BP article, text that had never been in it before. The text was based on very solid sources that said John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, was responsible for changing BP's corporate atmosphere into one of cost-cutting and lower safety. The sources were the Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, and the New York Times. I stand by my composition of this material as being very suitable to the article, not at all a violation of BLP, and not at all an off-topic coatrack. A complete article about BP would include this information. At any rate, my contributions at BP were one of a content-creating editor concerned about accuracy and completeness, not as an admin keeping tabs on behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem right there is that you do not understand that WP:BLP demands a generally stricter adherence to all our content policies when it comes to living people, not just a stricter requirement for verification. It was an article about the company, but you made a point of assigning blame to Browne for BP's environmental problems, even after his departure, in the lede and several other prominent places of the article. Your comments clearly indicated that you were trying to force this edit in out of your own personal opinions regarding the company and the corporate exec you deem responsible for its troubles. It does have relevance to how you would conduct yourself as an admin, because you will have to examine the conduct of people in similar situations and it also reflects on your attitude towards neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly misread me. Perhaps you were not aware that I did not even know who Browne was until I was researching the BP topic by looking through books and news reports. Because of having no position on him, I could not possibly have any "personal opinions" about the guy. The only elements I brought to the BP article were concepts that were repeated in numerous media outlets by expert industry observers: "How the Sun King sank BP", "How BP’s Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence", "The real villain of BP", "The final days of BP's John Browne". Your position on this matter baffles me. CEO Browne was blamed for BP's later troubles by multiple media sources, so we report that fact. It was (and remains) a critical part of BP's corporate history. Citing BLP to prevent this material from going into the BP article is a mistaken policy position. A CEO's direction for a company is a foundational part of that company. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure plenty of people had no personal opinions about Tony Hayward before he began being prominently associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill. You can form opinions about subjects very quickly, especially when they are being associated with something else. Are you saying you also have no personal opinions about BP, corporate executives, wealth disparities, the environment, oil, etc.? Those will influence your personal opinions on individuals, even if you only just found out about them.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect TDA, this seems like the "corporations are people too, my friend" argument from an involved editor, and a misapplication of our BLP policies. This same argument is repeated in numerous other articles where the goal seems to be to prevent unpleasant content from making it's way into articles, against our NPOV policies. - MrX 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really surprised at this complaint about Binksternet's editing at the BP article. Binksternet was consistently fair and unbiased in his edits. Looking back at the talk page I see that The Devil's Advocate only stayed a couple of days and then left the article. Gandydancer (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly misread me. Perhaps you were not aware that I did not even know who Browne was until I was researching the BP topic by looking through books and news reports. Because of having no position on him, I could not possibly have any "personal opinions" about the guy. The only elements I brought to the BP article were concepts that were repeated in numerous media outlets by expert industry observers: "How the Sun King sank BP", "How BP’s Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence", "The real villain of BP", "The final days of BP's John Browne". Your position on this matter baffles me. CEO Browne was blamed for BP's later troubles by multiple media sources, so we report that fact. It was (and remains) a critical part of BP's corporate history. Citing BLP to prevent this material from going into the BP article is a mistaken policy position. A CEO's direction for a company is a foundational part of that company. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem right there is that you do not understand that WP:BLP demands a generally stricter adherence to all our content policies when it comes to living people, not just a stricter requirement for verification. It was an article about the company, but you made a point of assigning blame to Browne for BP's environmental problems, even after his departure, in the lede and several other prominent places of the article. Your comments clearly indicated that you were trying to force this edit in out of your own personal opinions regarding the company and the corporate exec you deem responsible for its troubles. It does have relevance to how you would conduct yourself as an admin, because you will have to examine the conduct of people in similar situations and it also reflects on your attitude towards neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- The main diff TDA points to here shows me composing new text for the BP article, text that had never been in it before. The text was based on very solid sources that said John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, was responsible for changing BP's corporate atmosphere into one of cost-cutting and lower safety. The sources were the Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, and the New York Times. I stand by my composition of this material as being very suitable to the article, not at all a violation of BLP, and not at all an off-topic coatrack. A complete article about BP would include this information. At any rate, my contributions at BP were one of a content-creating editor concerned about accuracy and completeness, not as an admin keeping tabs on behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- My take on the diffs supplied is that Binksternet, rather than blindly reverting per a common or garden edit war, was trying to reach a suitable compromise in the lead of BP and provide a neutral point of view to avoid putting undue weight on the criticism of its environmental measures, providing (what I assume is) a more neutral source in the Daily Telegraph. I also see his subsequent endorsement of including the Texas City Refinery explosion in the lead on talk, which suggests he's not inclined to support a pro-BP or pro-environment view. So I think things are a little bit more subtle than you suggest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose far less than courteous when I was being attacked over the Nixon TFA and this editor, shall we just say, was less than polite. We have enough trouble with rude admins, see no need to add to the club. Recent incident, January 2013, not disclosed under question 3.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- In January the only interaction we had was my small comment agreeing with Kaldari about the baseball photo. Here is the dialog we had in December 2012 which is more likely what you are referring to: Talk:Richard_Nixon#Comment. I'm sorry you saw it as an attack, or as me being "less than courteous". I saw it as me pointing out article ownership issues which would have tanked the birth centennial appearance of Nixon on the Main page. I thought we worked together very cordially on the Truman FAC and its preceding peer review. I'm surprised that that previous positive interaction was effaced in your estimation by a collegial debate we had in December. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose We actually have a good view into his/her mindset at the recent Tea Party article conflict where, in three separate instances, s/he called for topic bans on editors: two of which he then never supported with diffs on the issue (and never explained why) and once (in my case) calling for my topic ban for the bad faith accusation that I was acting "as a heavy" for many of the users in the conflict, even though my contributions were basically part of a discussion at the talk page (also known as "how we solve conflicts at Wikipedia"). Oh, and s/he proposed my topic ban without bothering to notify me about the discussion one way or the other, leaving it to Killerchihuahua to do so. We all make mistakes, for sure, but especially given how recent this is, the complete lack of correction of the errors made, and the fact that he now wants a bit and could act on those misinformed and misguided beliefs about his/her fellow editors? I have to oppose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Ill-suited by both acts and temperament to be an admin. His accusations against many editors show a battleground personality, his statements above that it is always the other guy who was at fault when he got blocked shows an interesting Weltanschauung about Wikipedia, but Kurdo777 and his sympathetic editors refused mediation and continued to edit war to remove cited text they did not like. His proposal to "ban them all" without providing a scintilla of what is known as "evidence" on the Tea Party shows a remarkable desire to cause drama and not to properly reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines ab initio. He even proposed deleting a WikiProject on his own political grounds Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism which does not make me think he is remotely qualified to be an admin. WikiProject Conservatism is at its root undesirable because its scope is undefinable Collect (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- His opinion is widely shared. The scope of WikiProject Conservatism is undefinable, as many discussions on this subject have proven. BTW, I can't help but notice that virtually every oppose here is connected to members and allies of WikiProject Conservatism. Were you canvassed to come here and oppose the candidate? One of the primary criticisms of WikiProject Conservatism is that it exists solely as a vote stacking engine. This RfA seems to prove that likely hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- What an asinine suggestion! No I WAS NOT CANVASSED to come here. And your suggestion is, IMHO, vile and improper on this RfA page entirely. And your attack on editors for their positions here is egregious. BTW, I am not and naever have been a member of any such WikiProject, nor do I CANVASS on any WikiProject, nor have I ever been canvassed on any WikiProject whatsoever. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Viriditas, I wouldn't put it as strongly as Collect just has, but he does have a point. Your coment is on the !voters themselves, not on the rationales, i.e it's ad hominem. I have nothing to do with WikiProject Conservatism -- never heard of it before, in fact. --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- His opinion is widely shared. The scope of WikiProject Conservatism is undefinable, as many discussions on this subject have proven. BTW, I can't help but notice that virtually every oppose here is connected to members and allies of WikiProject Conservatism. Were you canvassed to come here and oppose the candidate? One of the primary criticisms of WikiProject Conservatism is that it exists solely as a vote stacking engine. This RfA seems to prove that likely hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regrettable oppose During the US Presidential race, I was patrolling election articles and I very nearly had to block him for edit warring on Political positions of Mitt Romney involving Paul Ryan. I see in the other opposes that same behavior along political lines. I generally like Binksternet, but an admin has to be able to put their own biases aside or step away and I haven't seen that from Binksternet. Politics seems to be the achilles heel of an otherwise good editor.--v/r - TP 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you are over-reacting. The edit you identified as "edit warring" was Binksternet's first edit to the article -- and the only substantive edit he ever made to that article. He had, however, engaged in article talk-page discussion with the editors who were contending over the statement about Paul Ryan, and his talk page statement about the change to the article indicates (albeit not awfully clearly) that his edit was intended to address the main objection raised by one of the contending parties while restoring content that he and others thought were important to include. It appears from the article history that his edit succeeded in resolving part of the ongoing controversy, since his addition remained intact while other words surrounding it were tweaked -- and his words are still in the current version of the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments appear to suggest that there is an exemption in WP:EW to 'being right.' There's not. He was aware the entire topic area was under article probation. It isn't surprising to me that no one else reverted him, and I do not think it has anything to do with him 'solving' anything. It simply came down to 3 reverts on both sides, a 4th revert by either party being a bright line, and stern warnings all around by me.--v/r - TP 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's a legitimate question of judgement there, but it's entirely reasonable to interpret the history not as editing on one "side" or the other, but rather as an initiative (indeed, a somewhat successful initiative) to bring an end to the ongoing contention. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, and my memory is 6 months old, but I recall Binksternet being heavily involved in the topic area during the elections and this was not a random super hero trying to solve a dispute event from my perspective at the time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I worked at the various US elections articles in a non-partisan fashion. I removed a bunch of uncited or poorly cited endorsers for Obama and for Romney without regard for political position. I looked to see whether the endorsers were cited well enough, or could they be. The issue I was responding to was initially a streak of disruption by User:Belchfire. I brought his disruption up in late September at ANI; subsequently User:Viriditas pointed back to my post in early October and said something should be done about Belchfire. He was eventually blocked in mid-October for disruption on a US political topic. At the time, I fully approved of TParis's initiative in placing discretionary sanctions on US political articles leading up to election day. I still do—the refereeing action will probably need to be repeated before every major US election. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, and my memory is 6 months old, but I recall Binksternet being heavily involved in the topic area during the elections and this was not a random super hero trying to solve a dispute event from my perspective at the time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's a legitimate question of judgement there, but it's entirely reasonable to interpret the history not as editing on one "side" or the other, but rather as an initiative (indeed, a somewhat successful initiative) to bring an end to the ongoing contention. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments appear to suggest that there is an exemption in WP:EW to 'being right.' There's not. He was aware the entire topic area was under article probation. It isn't surprising to me that no one else reverted him, and I do not think it has anything to do with him 'solving' anything. It simply came down to 3 reverts on both sides, a 4th revert by either party being a bright line, and stern warnings all around by me.--v/r - TP 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you are over-reacting. The edit you identified as "edit warring" was Binksternet's first edit to the article -- and the only substantive edit he ever made to that article. He had, however, engaged in article talk-page discussion with the editors who were contending over the statement about Paul Ryan, and his talk page statement about the change to the article indicates (albeit not awfully clearly) that his edit was intended to address the main objection raised by one of the contending parties while restoring content that he and others thought were important to include. It appears from the article history that his edit succeeded in resolving part of the ongoing controversy, since his addition remained intact while other words surrounding it were tweaked -- and his words are still in the current version of the article. --Orlady (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Response to Question 8 I appreciate that you answered it. The reason I asked was I was curious if you'd use the admin tools in an area that I felt you've had trouble participating in as an editor (politics). I wasn't looking for a particular answer and yours was neither right nor wrong. I was just curious about your position on yourself. I'll admit that given a spectacular answer, I might've reconsidered my position but I don't know what a spectacular answer would've looked like. So I'm not holding your answer against you in any way.--v/r - TP 17:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The editor's block log, in combination with behavior noted above and elsewhere, leads me to think the editor does not have the temperament to be an uncontroversial administrator here. This editor is clearly talented and a positive contributor here, but I think there are other better ways for him to contribute to Wikipedia than as being an administrator. Deli nk (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose because of conflict of roles. Even assuming all the above can be countered (which I haven't sufficiently investigated), he says " I purposely step into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki." Protecting the wiki, for example from POV editing, is a noble cause, but you don't let a serving field officer be a judge at a war crimes tribunal. Binksternet will be less shackled in his attempts at countering POV if he remains not an admin. --Stfg (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument is basically sound, but if I were involved in an article then the most I would do about it would be the same as any other non-admin editor: I would take the issue to a noticeboard or dispute resolution. I would not use the tools during debates about content. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think he's saying you'd violate WP:INVOLVED. I think he's saying that your talents combating POV pushing are more effective as an editor (with or without the tools) than as a tool wielding admin (who is uninvolved).--v/r - TP 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. Remove "with or" and you have my point exactly. Binksternet, I'm not saying you'd violate WP:INVOLVED (how could I know that?), just that we don't put the policeman on the judge's bench. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think he's saying you'd violate WP:INVOLVED. I think he's saying that your talents combating POV pushing are more effective as an editor (with or without the tools) than as a tool wielding admin (who is uninvolved).--v/r - TP 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument is basically sound, but if I were involved in an article then the most I would do about it would be the same as any other non-admin editor: I would take the issue to a noticeboard or dispute resolution. I would not use the tools during debates about content. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per concerns demonstrated above. Widr (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry. You seem like a (sometimes very) good editor, but you have a number of flaws, some of which are very unbecoming in a RFA candidate, and I cannot support for that reason. I suggest you continue to remain 'clean' and come back in 6-12 months, when I am sure I will be proud to lend my support. GiantSnowman 15:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Binksternet, you are unquestionably a fine editor, and your contributions to the project are of great value. I admire your resolve to "purposely step into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki", I really do, and you appear to be a courageous editor here - the likes of which are sometimes in short supply. However, your passion for the project has occasionally spilled over, as has been noted above, and I am not convinced that an administrator role would play to your evident strengths. — sparklism hey! 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Beyond great contributions, admins must demonstrate calm in the face of a storm - a degree of maturity that the candidate does not seem to have attained consistently (in part, some opposes above illustrate this). -- Scray (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry you seem like a good editor, but due to you're conflict and blocking history I don't think it's appopriate for you to be an admin. JayJayWhat did I do? 16:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the concerns raised by TP above. Stfg also makes good points. Intothatdarkness 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Excessive blocks for edit warring. A year might be enough clean time for someone with an incident or two on the log, but I'd be looking for more like three to five years after that history. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. At first glance I was willing to forgive the previous edit warring blocks. I don't feel like someone's past should be held against them if they genuinely have changed. However, after reading through these preceding opposition arguments, I don't feel comfortable with Binksternet as a admin. In particular, I feel that even though he has gone a while without being blocked, he still seems to edit in a confrontational manner, even in his responses to those opposing his RFA. He may be a useful content editor, but I do not feel as though that his skills there would translate to an administrative role. Ducknish (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - after taking a look the user's conflict and blocking history, I don't think it would be appropriate for him to become an administrator at this time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Binksternet says "The complete lack of blocks in 2012 demonstrates the success of the effort." Well, there were no blocks in 2009, and then four in 2010. Ergo; no blocks in 2012 might be followed by several blocks in 2013... Kraxler (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - I was ready to oppose rather strongly until I read what Dennis said below. I then almost ended in the neutral column, but six blocks total one of which within the past two years and the concerns over temperament raised by TP are too much for me. Another year of block free, civil editing and I might be inclined to support, but for now, my criteria are not met. Go Phightins! 00:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I've checked the first block from December 2008 and would come to a different summary than this candidate. But what really startles me are the edits on Maafa 21, where his most recent block comes from and where it's obvious he dislikes the documentary and tried to make the documentary look bad in the lead section.--Razionale (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm sorry that you have come to this conclusion. Because of my involvement there, the Maafa 21 article would never be one where I could serve as an administrator. Regarding my strong position there, I've studied the topic and I've seen the film. It treads very heavily on the fine scholarship easily found in libraries. Regarding all of my blocks, they are now history, having stopped 16 months ago. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still have concerns about the history of edit-warring and POV-pushing. That he has learned where the lines are well enough to avoid being blocked doesn't mean he has the temperament I'd like to see in an admin. Kilopi (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Binksternet is a good content creator as proved by a number of created/edited articles. However, adminship is not a promotion one may expect to get as a good editor—not all good content creators are good admins and vice versa as these roles require sometime quite different qualities. Some support votes mention Binksternet's passion—I would say that an admin should stay calm and control his/her passion which seems not to be a case here. Reading Binksternet's answer to the Q3 I wondered that beside of the detailed description of his/her past blocks s/he failed to mention any recent edit conflict. However, looking for the votes in this section, there seems to be several. The BP article and its talk page may be one example where this editor was involved in deep conflict in last December or just three months ago. S/he made also harsh comments about fellow editors (e.g. [8], [9]) but unlikely the case provided by Ritchie333, there was never apology although asked by another editor ([10]). I am sure that Binksternet knows policies but I am concerned how s/he will implement these policies. I found this comment about copyright issues not encouraging to support nomination for adminship as this is quite fundamental issue for Wikipedia (it was previously described at the talk page in details why the text re-added by Binksternet violates WP:CV (copy-pasted direct quote without reference camouflaged by existing reference in the text which was not about the re-added text) but nevertheless this was ignored). I think that Binksternet has a potential to become a good admin and I will be happy to support him/her if s/he will re-apply next year and there are no similar behavioural problems but right now this is not the case. Beagel (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're not a good content creator, then you're not a good editor, and should not be an admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not any good content creator is a good admin. There are number of good editors failed in RfA or even more, never applied. Beagel (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're not a good content creator, then you're not a good editor, and should not be an admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Binksternet. I know even if I'm not oftentimes or really worked with you, I know you're a good editor. However, due to concerns raised and demonstrated, I should oppose this nomination. Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- This user has both supported and opposed this candidacy. I have temporarily indented both votes, and informed the user to pick one vote to stick with. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed I forgot to strikethrough my support !vote above there... Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- This user has both supported and opposed this candidacy. I have temporarily indented both votes, and informed the user to pick one vote to stick with. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret. Here, we have a good article contributor, with an impeccable contribution history. However, as has been continuously pointed out - the edit warring incidents which have culminated in multiple blocks, can't be ignored. 6 to 12 months of absolutely clean and positive editing will win my (and I'm sure others too, because your article contribution is perfect) support. But just not now. Whatever happens, Good Luck! —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Six blocks total one of which within the past two years with temperament issues concerns me here, although I am satisfied with your content work. TBrandley (review) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I actually had no opinion before this RfA, but challenging a neutral comment in this manner only serves to emphasize the concerns raised here about battleground behavior. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Mostly per Collect and TParis. Too much edit warring and POV issues. Arkon (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with TParis and Collect. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Seems like a good editor, but I feel there are too many concerns raised to support. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral...well, what we have here is a fine editor that takes a tough stand at times on difficult articles. I'm neutral until I see adequate reassurances that they will never use their tools or position in a conflict dispute they are involved in. One oppose comment sums up my thoughts that if one decides to engage in difficult articles, NOT being an administrator has its advantages.--MONGO 15:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Moral support You look to be a prolific and valuable editor, so I hope you won't be discouraged by the oppose votes, whatever the outcome. But some of them have raised some good points about temperament. A "dirty" block log shouldn't permanently disqualify you or anything, but recent edit warring suggests you haven't left those habits behind. Keep clean and I'll hope to give you full support next time. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral. I like Binksternet, particularly when I'm on the other side of the debate, as it is always a sincere and lively exchange of ideas, but I'm concerned about temperament a bit. From what I've seen, he serves an important role here, vigorously advocating his position on a variety of issues, but that vigor isn't always compatible with adminship. Unquestionably a good editor and a tremendous asset to the project, and his sometimes rough edges often bring a smile to my face, but I'm just not convinced this is the right time or the right move. However, I can't and won't oppose because I know he has the project's best interest at heart and I don't think he would never intentionally abuse the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral You appear to have the right heart for the project, but the recent blocks are worrisome to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kevin, what is your measure of how long should be the span of unblocked time for an administrator candidate? You supported Secret's RfA in February 2013 but Secret had been blocked in January 2012, 13 months before. My last block was 16 months ago. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- And Binksternet logged more edits in those 16 months than appear in Secret's entire edit history. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kevin, what is your measure of how long should be the span of unblocked time for an administrator candidate? You supported Secret's RfA in February 2013 but Secret had been blocked in January 2012, 13 months before. My last block was 16 months ago. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral. I am impressed by the candidate's body of work, less so by the block log, and thus am neutral. But what decided me was this diff, seen above. I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing a candidate when I'm going to have previous RFA supports or opposes dug up and thrown in my face. Maybe it's just me, but I find that sort of thing very off-putting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the history of RFA participants who have used various quantitative rules (such as minimum number of months as a registered user, number of edits, number of edits in article space, number of GAs or FAs, etc.) to decide whether or not to support a candidate, it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for a candidate to ask what rule(s), if any, a particular user is applying when they state their objections or reservations. One reason why this question is worth asking: If prospective candidates know that many !voters feel that a person must have been block-free for a certain number of months in order to become an admin, editors are unlikely to seek adminship until they have a block-free record of that duration. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with Orlady here, I'm not seeing the problem with Binksternet's question to Kevin. What is Kevin's opinion?--v/r - TP 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not Kevin, but as an observer I read Binksternet's question as a strawman. Kevin made no statement whatsoever regarding length of time without a block, only stating that the recent blocks were worrisome. Yet the response(s) turned into a discussion of a criterion that Kevin did not even bring up. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with Orlady here, I'm not seeing the problem with Binksternet's question to Kevin. What is Kevin's opinion?--v/r - TP 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the history of RFA participants who have used various quantitative rules (such as minimum number of months as a registered user, number of edits, number of edits in article space, number of GAs or FAs, etc.) to decide whether or not to support a candidate, it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for a candidate to ask what rule(s), if any, a particular user is applying when they state their objections or reservations. One reason why this question is worth asking: If prospective candidates know that many !voters feel that a person must have been block-free for a certain number of months in order to become an admin, editors are unlikely to seek adminship until they have a block-free record of that duration. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)