Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet


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

Binksternet
'''Final (84/46/20); ended 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC) - Consensus for promotion not reached. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)'''

Nomination
- 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.

Killer Chihuahua 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.


 * 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.


 * In December 2008, I was blocked for edit warring on horn loudspeaker with an IP-hopping editor based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It looked like vandalism (blanking) at first, but then after I described my position on the article talk page it turned into a disagreement about content; a paragraph I had composed which described an important invention by audio engineer Tom Danley. I was certain that the IP editor was a particular competitor and detractor of Danley, but I should have taken the matter to a higher authority rather than engage in repeated reversions. After my block ended, I felt spurred to greatly expand and improve the article, answering at least some of the IP's concerns. The article has been stable now for four years.
 * In April 2010, I was blocked for edit warring with Kurdo777 at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. I was there because of a plea made by SnowFire at the Content Noticeboard back in June 2009, but then I stayed in contact with the article because it looked like a bloc of editors was successfully using the strength of numbers to preserve their preferred version. This article turned out to be the most intractable problem I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. I filed for mediation in March 2010 but Kurdo777 and his sympathetic editors refused mediation and continued to edit war to remove cited text they did not like. In April 2010 I put the article into "in use" status so that I could make a series of changes without edit conflicts, but Kurdo777 restored disputed text during this sequence and I saved over his change. At the same time, User:Khoikhoi was looking at the article history and determining that Kurdo777 and I were the main combatants engaging in long-term edit warring. He was right, of course. We were both blocked for 72 hours.
 * In July 2010, I was blocked for edit warring on art student scam. I reverted Mbz1 three times in the space of 42 minutes, then one more time 18 hours later, but the fourth reversion was a brightline violation of 3RR. I filed a 3RRN report on Mbz1 and Tariqabjotu rightly judged that both Mbz1 and I had been edit warring. Tariqabjotu blocked both of us.
 * In August 2010, Toddst1 blocked me for a week after I edit warred on Memorex and Wife acceptance factor. An IP-hopping editor from London added an uncited, trivial instance of the Memorex slogan as it was parodied in a film. I removed it five times in five days. Simultaneously with my second reversion, I started a talk page discussion about the issue. The IP editor took part, saying my personal opinion was insufficient reason. The discussion continued and so did the slow-motion edit war. Toddst1 looked at this behavior and also at my interaction with a Greater Sydney area IP editor who wanted to remove a bit of cited text about unmarried and gay couples at wife acceptance factor. I reverted this editor once on August 17 and three times on August 19. Also on the 19th I reverted an IP editor from Utah. That made four reversions and a violation of 3RR. As well, the Greater Sydney editor had been complaining about me in real-time on IRC and by talk page notes to various admins, so an ANI discussion was started about the problem. Toddst looked at my other contributions and noticed that I had misused the Rollback bit on a content dispute so he revoked it along with blocking me. This block was a reflection of how my editing attitude had become entirely too combative. I saw how a pugilistic manner had gotten in the way of collegial editing. I also learned that Twinkle allowed for AGF rollback, not just the vandalism rollback I had been using out of ignorance. From that point forward I made good use of the AGF rollback feature of Twinkle.
 * In December 2010, Xavexgoem blocked me for edit warring/tendentious editing in regard to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article (again). I bought a new book on the topic and helped expand the biography about Darioush Bayandor, the author of the book. The Palgrave Macmillan-published book contradicted Kurdo777's preferred version of the 1953 coup, and my attempt to cast the coup as having differing interpretations, a major one and a minor one, was repeatedly reverted as fringe. On December 15 I started a discussion at the Fringe Noticeboard but this ended unresolved. A talk page discussion I started at the 1953 coup article was going nowhere. Bayandor-cited changes I made to the topic, including the Mohammad Mosaddegh biography, were constantly reverted by Kurdo777. On December 16 I started a discussion at AN/I about Kurdo777's repeated reversions. Xavexgoem looked at my contributions there and blocked me for edit warring and for edit warring and for tendentious editing because my edit summaries appeared insufficient to describe the large changes I was making. I promised to use more descriptive edit summaries and to limit myself to 1RR on all Iran-related topics. Xavexgoem unblocked me. I kept this promise.
 * On January 9, 2011, Xavexgoem blocked me for "continued tendentious editing and wikihounding". He referred to my January 4 suggestions for article expansion at Talk:Prostitution in Iran four hours after Kurdo777 edited the article itself on January 3, this having the appearance of WP:HOUNDING. On January 5, I filed a Mediation Cabal request between me and Kurdo777, to try and work out the problems we were having. Xavexgoem wrote that he hoped that the case would be accepted, and that he "no longer" thought that Bayandor was an unreliable source. However, Kurdo777 did not accept the MedCab case and it did not work out. On January 7, I posted a request for comment at the Iran prostitution article, which saw vigorous response by multiple editors but no clear consensus. On January 9, Xavexgoem noticed the January 3–4 sequence between Kurdo777 and me and blocked me for three months. Andy Dingley started a thread at AN/I called Excessive block on user:Binksternet. Consensus there was that the block was excessive. Xavexgoem reduced it to one month. I promised to limit myself to 1RR on all articles for six months, and Gwen Gale unblocked me. I kept this promise.
 * In November 2011, Swarm blocked me for one week for violation of 1RR at Maafa 21. The article was under 1RR oversight because it was within the abortion topic, and I reverted twice in a space of 24 hours and 1 minute. I promised to adhere to 0RR on the article and SpinningSpark unblocked me. I kept that promise for one year and then asked SpinningSpark if the restriction could be lifted. He said okay, but ask Swarm also. I asked Swarm and he said okay.


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A: Vandalism is the deliberate intent to harm the wiki. I think it is acceptable to label an edit as vandalism if it appears that harm is intended. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain how this revert you performed three months ago even remotely rises to the level of vandalism? When questioned about this, your response was that those that exhibit a POV are not deserving of your good faith.  Perhaps your response was formulated because of who asked you the question (and perhaps you didn't mean what you said), but I'd be very hesitant to support an editor seeking the bit who stands by either of these edits.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from tofutwitch11
 * 12. What do you think is the appropriate punishment for an admin who violates 3RR?
 * A: There is a proper response for such a violation; it is rather a protection of Wikipedia than a punishment of the admin. First, the admin should be asked to respond about their intentions. The protective response of blocking the admin must be taken if there appears to be an intention of continued disruption. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 12b. ...one who has consistent civility concerns?
 * A: Again, punishment is not what we mete out; the question is how best to protect the encyclopedia from an admin with consistent civility concerns. I see civility as a particularly difficult problem to solve, one with many factors. The community would need to discuss this admin and come to a consensus about what to do. I would never act on my own and use the admin bit to address this kind of behavior. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Drmies
 * 13. Binksternet, can you offer us a brief stance on civility? Is the simple, singular use of a cussword enough to warrant a block, and if so, how bad a word would it have to be? If an otherwise civil enough editor calls someone a bad name (not of the "poopoo head" category), how would you respond, and would you display your tool in that response?
 * A: My stance on civility is one of weighing the net value to Wikipedia. Personally, I have thick skin and do not concern myself overmuch about rude interactions aimed at me. I note it and move on to deal with the underlying concerns. But what about harm to the project? Is incivility driving away good editors? If so, what is the relative value of those who stay versus those who leave? What is the long-term effect of allowing free rein to rude editors? These questions have to be answered by the community, which has not been able to form consensus on the issue. I would hate to see an editor use a fairly mild insult or even sharp criticism as leverage to oust an opponent in a content dispute, but I would also hate to see a consistently rude editor poison the atmosphere of collegiality. Thus I approve of protecting the encyclopedia from those who demonstrate repeated incivility but not for single incidents. WP:NPA adequately covers the worst cases of the latter. Regarding your specific examples: I think that no single word is bad enough for a block by itself. Context is key; the application of the bad word should be evaluated for intent to harm and for harm done. If I saw a single very insulting comment used by an editor who is usually civil, I would first decide whether to redact it or seek oversight removal. I would next warn the user about their violation of WP:NPA. I would also try to engage them in discussion to get a sense of whether the person would continue in that vein or if they regretted the outburst. If there was no regret and a high likelihood of continued insults then I would need to protect the encyclopedia by blocking the user. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Iselilja
 * 14. Can an administrator topic ban a user?
 * A: Not usually. A topic ban can be set in place by Jimbo, the Foundation, ArbCom, or the Wikipedia community as a whole—usually determined by consensus at AN. However, if an article is on probation then an uninvolved admin can ban a user who has violated the probation. An administrator may also impose one or more editing restrictions such as 1RR on a user, the restrictions possibly applying to a specific topic. This last example is not a topic ban but a topic restriction. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from GeorgeLouis
 * 15. I notice you use a lot of unfamiliar or in-group abbreviations and also, for some reason, choose to prefix words with exclamation points. To me, these little flaws show a distinct lack of attention to the needs of newbies and others who are not conversant with Wiki markup. What is your comment on this matter?
 * A: When I deal with new editors I adjust my communication style as needed. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from GeorgeLouis
 * 16. In this reversion, did you bother to check the original source to see if the word paradox had been used in that source, or did you simply assume that the editor had slipped it in on his or her own account? In either case, why did you not make your assertion on the Talk Page rather than in the Edit Summary?
 * A: When I reverted I knew that the cited page 190 of the Messner source did not contain the word paradox, paradoxes, paradoxical, or even the concept. I did not "assume". Just now I looked again and I found that later in the book the word paradox and paradoxical appear just once, on page 270, about something completely different: the notion that gay men are largely free of the love/hate paradox that hetero men may have for women. Regarding edit summaries, I find that if the message is brief enough then the edit summary may fill the bill. If that proves not to be the case, talk page discussion is the easy next step. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Binksternet:
 * 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.''

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)
 * I should just make a note about something here &mdash; I am currently revisiting my support !vote and examining the rationales of the opposing comments. In particular, I find this conversation to be very concerning, as it seems to demonstrate a lack of two important traits in an administrator: patience and objectivity. I don't want to abstain or move to another section, especially after being the first person to opine in favour of this RfA. Nevertheless, I need to do some more thinking to determine whether or not these issues are generally outweighed by his commitment, honesty, and good sense. Kurtis (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where he demonstrates issues relating to "patience and objectivity" in the discussion to which you've linked. It seems to me that he simply produced some reliable sources in a conversation that involved some corporate apologist editors advocating on behalf of BP.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing support, moving to neutral. Kurtis (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Generally clueful, no reason to think he'll abuse the tools. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support When this went live? — ΛΧΣ  21  04:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. Jus  da  fax   04:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- It's clear (s)he'll be very helpful to WP with the mop. Green  green  green  red 04:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, Good luck Tazerdadog (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - experienced user and has great contributions. No concerns at all. T4B (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Support  Mediran  ( 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)
 * I forgot to strikethrough this !vote. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Very sensible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. -- &#124; Uncle Milty &#124; talk  &#124; 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 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)
 * 1) Support per NuclearWarfare.-- В и к и  T  14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 1) Support. A good editor who I believe will use the tools wisely. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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: ). 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 1) 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. Ray  Talk 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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.  Mini  apolis  13:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Late but strong support by the nominator, who would have been first if she hadn't been out sick! Killer Chihuahua  21:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Get well soon! Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Binksternet is a good user, with powers to err (like all human), but a good user. Chrishonduras (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'm not worried about your block log. Last block 16 months ago. Some people just don't understand that a block isn't the end of the word -- everyone makes mistakes. Albeit you repeatedly made the same mistake, but you have shown in the past year+ that you have learned. I feel that as an administrator you would be a net positive to the project. As an admin I would think that you would be more careful not to violate 3RR and/or cause an civility concerns; and if you did you would face appropriate consequences anyway. You seem to be experienced, and if you can keep your combat-like attitude (which is okay to have!) in check while acting as an administrator I think you'll be fine. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per NW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support The are quite a few things to admire about the candidate's 93,000+ contributions. Binksternet has earned his stripes in some of the most contentious topic areas and is familiar with the problems that editors face. He knows the ins and outs of this place, is wise enough to avoid past mistakes, honest enough to admit new ones, and will be invaluable as an administrator. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - per my support for recent RFAs of editors who I could see had learned their lesson. There are editors I respect on both sides of this, but in the spirit of WP:NOBIGDEAL... we're content creators looking for functional administrators, not Cardinals electing a Pope. I can't see anything recent that suggests he'll break the project and if it turns out we're wrong, de-sysop him FFS. People have seemed especially keen for that of late and I'd suggest all admins (old and new) are on a short leash at the moment. Might as well let another poor mutt volunteer himself. Stalwart 111  23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. The fact that his record is not squeaky-clean just means that he was actually involved in content creation, instead of just gnoming around in admin areas. Shrigley (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support I have bumped into Binksternet many times while working on some of the most contentious articles on wikipedia (some of our interactions ). He has consistently made good decisions in the toughest articles, and has exhibited patience all the times I have interacted with him. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Willing to face those against the march of time, we should strive to have those on the right side of history! Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support with long rationale coming early tomorrow. Secret account 06:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support he is solid, thoughtful and enthusiastic about Wikipedia. He has a broad range of interests and is deeply interested in improving the substance of articles. Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Moral support as this is currently running at about 60%. I normally only vote in borderline cases but this is an exception. The opposes are serious and well made, but my own view is that over a year with a clean block log and a good record of constructive contributions is sufficient. Moreover I'd like to demonstrate that the WP community really can let bygones be bygones and that people's early mistakes can be recovered from. However I may be too much of a softy and some folks need a bit longerbefore they'll agree that the change is permanent - so my advice to Binksternet is to take those opposes at face value, keep up the good work and reapply at the end of this calendar year when your two-year probation is up. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#224422;">| prattle _  13:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I find Orlady's responses to the oppose !votes persuasive. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support If you seek perfection, you're in the wrong place. If you weigh the positives against the negatives, this candidate's positives outweigh the negatives. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Initially, I thought I would oppose Binksternet because of the past history of blocks, but he appears to be acceptably civil and cooperative even when things get heated. His problem has simply been hitting revert a few too many times, which should and has been simple enough to get over.  Otherwise, he has all the qualities needed.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I have had a large amount of interaction with Binksternet, and always found them to be cooperative and civil. I trust Binksternet to have the ability to turn-off their argumentative side when doing Admin work; and it back on when trying to persuade irrational editors to change their ways.  We all have the ability to change our demeanor as the situation demands (boss, parent, child, co-worker, employee, etc).  --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I'm fine with the candidate's answers to the questions, and am unmoved by the oppose !votes. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I understand some of the concerns below, but it's still better than not to let Binksternet to have the tools. Deryck C. 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Support For mine, the thorough involvement of content creation trumps the loss of temper resulting in a block, which was nearly 18 months ago now. Bettern than even chance of being net positiveCasliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Support (was weak/moral support) I was initially leaning oppose, and some of the opposes have points. Especially the concerns brought up by Stfg. That said, I also see the value of having admins that do not have perfectly pristine history. The answers to the questions seem good. My random spot of talk / contributions seems reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Switching to regular support after looking a bit more, as well as seeing more !votes in support among the editors and admins whose opinions I respect. I still understand the opposes though. PaleAqua (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I like his style but can objectively appreciate the concerns. However, I trust him to exercise due caution with the tools - and this is a candidate who demonstrably 'needs' them. His impressive hard work and obvious effort at self-improvement benefits the wiki and if this RfA goesn't go through, I hope Binksternet will be back here, when his past has receded further. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the answers to the questions, the candidate clearly has the right ideas. Spartaz Humbug! 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support I have met this editor on several occasions, and have found him to be a solid contributor, and willing to be persuaded on controversial issues. Opposes relating to his block history seem to me to have no relevance; the last block was sixteen months ago, and I believe that it is possible to learn from experince; I further believe he has done so. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="black">Rzuwig ► 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  I am mindful of many of the concerns raised in the oppose section, in particular those concerned with edit warring.  I also see that the most egregious examples that I've seen are well in the past, as Anthony Bradbury notes.  I'd ask the editor to studiously honor (and perhaps leave a margin of safety around) WP:INVOLVED when taking administrative action should this RfA pass, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that I trust this editor to honor that.  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. There ought to be far more admin candidates with decent block logs (although I consider only six blocks in six years to be a little on the marginal side personally, I'd prefer to see a bit more evidence of feistiness) so they have some idea of how humiliating being blocked can be and be a little more cautious when deciding to block on the basis of an editor using a word such as "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Although i too have seen issues with Binks edits i think his positives outweigh his negatives and consider him competent. Its time to give this mothrfucker some tools. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method  <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Per Malleus, plus only those who have been on both sides of an issue truly understand it. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. In the past Binksternet employed a rather vigorous editing style, but has since mellowed, showing a marked improvement over the past year. As a veteran content creator, he would bring a wealth of experience and clue to the admin ranks. <font face="DejaVu Sans" color="333300">Gobōnobō + c 22:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, thoughtful editor that I think has matured a lot in recent history. Dreadstar  ☥   23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Knowledgeable about policy and procedures. Also impressed by the degree of support from many administrators  TFD (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- Civility is of extreme importance on WP and editors and especially administrators need to realize that not everyone has the same "thick skin" as others. But of even more importance is contribution to the development of the encyclopedia and, once someone has proved that they can achieve this main purpose, having the tools to make the encyclopedia better is important.  I hope that Binksternet recognizes that with the new position comes a renewed obligation to be courteous, welcoming, and step back from heated discussions when impartiality is difficult, but on the whole, the mop will improve the encyclopedia and look forward to editing with Binksternet in the future, regardless of the success of the AfD.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Would have earlier had I known. A much improved demeanor but still has his conviction of expressing his mind. Capped (with good intentions) canvassing wrangle is troubling. Does that mean opposition voting is tainted? From the looks of it, this may be a close "vote". Will the clerk take possible canvassing into consideration? ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per Malleus; admins do not have to be perfect, and in a small effort to partially counteract the knuckledraggingly fatuous oppose vote here. If you don't pass this time, please let me know the next time you try. --John (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I've edited with Bink over several articles and we're usually always on the opposite side. He's always fair and reasonable. Like here: . Also, I think he did a fine job explaining his block log. It shows he's worked hard to improve. Luck! Bink. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Binksternet is a great contributor and I have faith in their judgment, in part because they know content. I'm sure they'll keep their their nose clean. Also, cool name. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Hard worker, valuable editor - per SV, Malleus, Pumpkin Sky, Casliber, and lots of others...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Despite the lengthy block log, sometimes a passionate, tempestuous admin is just what the project needs. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I've been undecided on this for a while, because of the edit-warring and passionate editing that people have been talking about. But understanding how strongly content creators can feel about their work is a good thing, providing an admin knows where to draw the line when it comes to topics they are personally involved in - and I trust Binksternet to know where that line is and not to use admin tools when inappropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Binksternet is a long-term editor, avid participant, and a benefit to the project. Being direct and matter-of-fact is not a detriment.  Disagreement or even criticism of one's work is not the same thing as harrassment or a personal attack, despite what the oversensitive may assert or feel.  And such disagreements on content do not mean the candidate would misuse administrative tools.  Kablammo (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Weak Support: Despite the lengthy block log, the candidate is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Six blocks? Ouch! Recent contributions have been good though.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 23) Weak Support Malleus makes a valid point that being on the blunt end of a block makes one more cautious (the somewhat relentless banging on about the sycophantic thing is getting a bit wearisome however) . There seem to be some pretty well put concerns in oppose, so this is borderline for me. However the content commitment and tenure are persuasive as well. To be honest, and petty though it may seem, Keifer's pointy and pathetic oppose (and this is the corerect use of WP:POINT, for once) tipped me into support over neutral. The candidate does not deserve such disruption, and Keifer's, well to be honest attention seeking, reflects poorly on him and should not do so on Binksternet. Pedro : Chat  21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 24) There are some significant and well-stated concerns raised in the "Oppose" section. Per Scray's oppose, I'd definitely be more comfortable if Binksternet had fewer blocks, or had shown a greater ability to stay calm in tense editing situations. But in the end, I'll support this request, if only in the moral sense, because I think it's become almost impossible for people who edit in controversial areas to pass RfA. We end up with a lot of admins who know how to close XfDs but have no idea what it's like to deal with substantive editing disputes or challenges. I'm actually more comfortable supporting someone whom I've seen in action in the trenches, even if it hasn't always been pretty, than I am supporting the usual array of bland ciphers who pass through RfA. At the very least, I feel compelled to support to cancel out the handful of petty and unfair opposes (while recognizing that most of the opposes are substantive). MastCell Talk 04:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 25) I've only been involved in a couple discussions where the candidate has also been engaged, but I only recall his being basically level headed and fact oriented. If the editor wants the tools and has even more time to burn, I say the crew could probably use some reinforcements. I've likely encountered admins that are less fact oriented, even when dealing with behavioral issues. When you edit articles related to controversial topics, it's better to be up front, as that helps people iron out differences and produce content that is balanced, or at least not biased against the current state of the truth.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Having voted early and watched this play out, I've been swayed by the candidate's handling of Q&A, and some of the well-considered supports from editors whom I deeply respect. I have also had time to look more thoroughly at the candidates contributions, and the balance of content-vs-drama.  As a meager contributor, I am humbled by the candidate's contributions, realize that high-volume editing in contentious areas has risks, and now believe that the candidate is maturing.  I also think that the candidate will benefit from this RFA, and hope that it will actually be successful - I think they'll use the tools to the project's benefit, and restrain the bit when they are in contention.  -- Scray (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Curious about Pedro's next action. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 13:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are Keifer, I'm sure you are. Pedro :  Chat  16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Orlady and others above. Dedicated editor with many great contributions. <font face="AR Cena" color="black">INeverCry  21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support An experienced, hard-working and policy oriented editor (and a grandfather, I believe) who has done a lot of good work around here for a long time. Editing on high conflict topics means inevitably that an editor is going to come into conflict with others: it is too bad to see among those opposing so many he has disagreed with over content. A good administrator knows that you cannot use the tools when you are involved in a dispute, and I certainly trust Binkernet to do that.Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Another of the "I thought he already was" candidates - the best sort. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Oppose

 * 1) 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: . 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 .-- 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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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)
 * 1) 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. 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * @Collect and Virditas both of you please WP:AGF here. Virididas there is no evidence that Collect was canvassed here, I seen him participating in a decent number of RFAs over the year. Collect, that MFD was over a year and a half ago and I don't see the relevance of his point of view there in regards to administrative status now. He might have said a misplaced comment there, but it clearly had a proper rationale for deletion and no evidence he grossly disregarded policy or guidelines on his rationale for thus it was a perfectly valid MFD that was created, and you were in the disagreeing side. Secret account 06:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will post just how long ago his proposal to topic ban a significant number of editors from all of the Tea Party and US Politics was? Last I checked, it was quite recently - but if it was a year and a hjhalf ago, kindly tell us. IIRC he made the proposals without providing a single diff and without notifying those whose names he bandied so loosely.  Including mine.  But heck -- if that was a year and a half ago, please tell me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 1) Oppose. Per concerns demonstrated above. Widr (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 1) 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. <font color="#FF0000">Jay <font color="#0000FF">Jay What did I do? 16:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per the concerns raised by TP above. Stfg also makes good points. Intothatdarkness 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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 can see that your blocks are history but that history spans almost three years, from December 2008 to November 2011, a longer period than you have been block-free. In fact, there was a period between the first and the second block, where you were block-free for about as long as you're now.--Razionale (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Perhaps the movie is a bad example of a good documentary, at least i have trouble finding reliable sources that have a good opinion about it.--Razionale (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC) As far as the first block was concerned, the "IP-hopping editor" used phrases from the start that look like it was a disagreement about content. The edit warring was about a favorable text for loudspeakers of Danley Sound Labs (your first edit to that article) and the source you used was a paper by that company. Edit warring continued after the IP editor made comments on the article talk page--Razionale (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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., ) but unlikely the case provided by Ritchie333, there was never apology although asked by another editor . 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * I forgot to strikethrough my support !vote above there... Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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! —<font color="#E62020">Mel <font color="#FF2400">bourne <font color="#FF7538">Star <font color="#FF9F00">☆ <font color="3D0376">talk 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. TB  randley  (review) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * It looks like a reasonable question to me. I wouldn't necessarily confuse asking a question with battleground behaviour, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with IRWolfie that the question is quite reasonable. If this is your sole reason, as you assert, for casting a negative !vote for am admin candidate, I hope that the closing bureaucrat will discount your !vote as carrying little weight. Your response to a candidate's neutrally-worded and valid question is, to me, a substantial over-reaction. Jus  da  fax   03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why I think the question is inappropriate. In addition to the concerns about temperament already expressed here, I see an admin candidate make a fallacious challenge to a neutral comment and it turns out that said comment was based on a careless reading of a block log? And we're talking about giving that candidate the power to block users themselves? No. And I never "asserted" that was my sole reason; all I said was that I did not have an opinion before coming here. There was plenty of material here to help me form an opinion. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Mostly per Collect and TParis . Too much edit warring and POV issues. Arkon (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Agree with TParis and Collect. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arzel, you've been here since 2005 and you've never participated in an RfA until today. I see the same WikiProject Conservatism names also participating in this RfA for the first time.  May I ask, did someone ask you to come here and oppose this candidate? Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Viriditas brings up a fascinating point. I too would be interested in an explanation from Arzel. Jus  da  fax   05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering I am not a member of that group your assertation is unjust. If you check my talk history you will see that no one asked me to comment.  I don't correspond with anyone off of WP talk pages.  You are correct that I have not participated in many of these discussions.  This is largely because I am not aware of the discussions until after they have already been completed or I don't know enough about the editor to have an opinion one way or the other.  Recently I noticed the discussion regarding looking at those editors with a large number of edits but are not Admin's which lead me to this discussion.  I have had interactions with Binksternet so I gave my opinion.  Arzel (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per TParis and Collect as well as my own experience with the editor on numerous venues. Perhaps after some time demonstrating more restraint I could support the nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Your history of edit warring is a bit concerning for me. If you go one more year edit-war free, I will consider supporting. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, edit warring is a pet hate of mine. If you can't discuss your disagreements with others without resorting to reverting their edits, I worry what would happen if you had the mop and bucket. Sorry. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes! 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Who would want an administrator who would write something as snarky as "Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time." GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this contribution to civility: "I warned you not by accident, . . . You are tendentious in your methods. . . . This experience has diminished further the little faith I had in your judgement. It was a disappointing display—your running again to your favorite refuge, BLPN, which did not deliver what you wanted this time. You wasted everybody's time for no good reason." GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not the least concerned about those comments. George,  did someone contact you offline and ask you to oppose this candidate?   I ask because you've been here since 2006, and during that entire time you've never voted in an RfA except for today. This is also true for Arzel.  And, after not voting for five years, Arkon showed up as well.  All three of you work closely with WikiProject Conservatism.  Is there some kind of canvassing going on off-wiki that we should know about? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The others can speak for themselves, but I've had my eye on Bink for quite some time, along with the other SJW's. For one, I'd love to see how you think I work with -any- project.  But take it to my talk page.  Arkon (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious; what are SJWs? Binksternet (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Social Justice Warrior. According to those  who use this term, there can be only one SJW, Jesus of Nazareth.  This is why they advocate trashing the planet, hoarding the resources, waging wars, and generally acting like jerks.  Read our article on "immanentize the eschaton" to understand what Arkon and his friends are really getting at. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I love that using an acronym allows you such a deep look within my mind. How much do I owe you?  Arkon (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Allow me to preface this by saying that you have made some tremendous contributions to this project (including the "We Can Do It!" article), but your not-so-distant history of edit-warring and temperament issues, including those brought up by GeorgeLouis and Beagel above me, is just too much to overlook at this point in time (Beagel's diffs were from under a year ago). I'd prefer at least another year of improving the way you deal with difficult situations. Also, I think it's terrific that we have editors "purposely step[ping] into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki." But it's important that editors who do so are exceptionally level-headed and impartial. I'm afraid these concerns don't reflect that. Work on your temperament and dispute resolution skills over the next year or so, and I'd certainly support a future RFA. Best wishes and good luck.  Tyrol5   [Talk]  23:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Still too soon since the issues. --Rschen7754 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose We don't need edit-warring admins. My experience with this user did not instill an admin-level of competence one little bit. Having to explain that WP:LEAD on his preferred change did not trump the WP:CONSENSUS policy was just sad.  Doc   talk  06:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose, subjeft of the RfA has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and outside of the realm of politics is an outstanding editor. As someone whose hands aren't clean, even when my intentions were IMHO the highest (which I believe that many editors who end up in those situations are), I can understand how the subject of the RfA ended up with the blemishes on their block log. It takes good editors with those good intentions to work through politically controversial subjects in order to achieve neutrality (if it is ever possible, and depending on what one's view of neutrality is). Unfortunately, it are those times that bring out the best and the worst in the name of good intentions. This has lead me to weakly oppose this RfA. It's not that the subject of this RfA is a bad person, and I believe that he/she is a great contributor of content, however as an Administrator keeping yourself above the fray is sometimes the most important aspect of the position. The way I see it those who work hard and get dirty, it is difficult to keep clean under the microscope that one subjects themselves to when they seek public office. Keep up the good work, but the high offices are not ready for Binksternet yet. Take the remarks above, see them as constructive criticism, and if Binksternet wishes to seek public office again, take sometime, stay out of those difficult areas, build a reputation for being neutral, and some time later, try again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Before Viriditas says anything, I first head of this via WT:MILHIST.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * RightCow, I have removed the linked RfA notice from the talk page of the military history WikiProject. Such RfA notices constitute canvassing per WP:CANVASSING, and should not be posted by anyone, whether supporting or opposing the RfA candidate.  Such canvassing was a major issue in another recent RfA, and I am determined that it not become an issue in another.  Thank you for your understanding.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it does not constitute canvassing under any of the definitions at WP:CANVASSING. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See the talk page here. I've recommended removing notices simply because it forces us to guess the motivations in order to determine if it is or isn't canvassing, and I feel it is against the spirit of the policy and a drama magnet.  I don't think anyone was intentionally attempting to do anything wrong, and obviously no sanctions are needed, but I think RfA notifications at Project pages are best just removed and no further issue made of it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at User talk:Nick-D; please see my rationale for posting the notification there (eg, that the people who are most familiar with Binksternet's history are likely to have an opinion on whether he or she should have the admin tools). I've got no major objections to the removal of the notice though, and my understanding that this was routine might be well and truly out of date. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (for now) Much has been said about the candidate's temperament, and unfortunately I have to agree.  In this RfA Bink claims to have a thick skin, but less than a month ago he accused another editor of making the mother of all personal attacks by referring to Bink and editor Roscelese  using the abbreviation "R&B".   This is clearly the polar opposite of having a thick skin.   While I have minor concerns about Bink's interpretation of some wikipedia norms (see my vandalism question above) I feel he is uncomfortable or unwilling in owning up to possible mistakes which is (to me) the hallmark of an excellent admin.  Given the feedback he has received here,  6-12 months might show a dramatic improvement and if demonstrated I would support measuring him for a mop.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is the diff you wanted to show. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, according to Little green rosetta, standing up and asserting yourself as an individual who expects to be treated with respect in a collaborative, collegial environment is deserving of an "oppose"? Talk about grasping at straws to oppose this candidate!  Binksternet should receive an award for standing his ground! "R&B" is unacceptable and assumes that these two very different editors are not individuals, but are rather acting and thinking as a team, like insects swarming.  Isn't it odd that it's always the WikiProject Conservatism crowd who are always denying us our freedom as individuals?  I just can't get over that strange irony.  I feel that I must quote Michael Lind: "Why do conservatives hate freedom?" Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya know, in my defense I never really thought of Roscelese and Binksternet as as being swarming insects, more like occasional tag team partners. Although he seems have a proclivity for swarming to the latest ideological dung pile I don't tend to think of Viriditas of a being an insect either; more like a compulsive hand washer. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Short of ones name being something like Francis Urquhart, to call the use of initial a personal attack is perhaps the most petty complaint I've ever seen on wikipeida. Hitting the save button on that complaint shows extremely poor judgment.     little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee - please, anyone, address my oppose if we want to harangue the opposers! At Abe Vigoda, Binksternet basically declared that his change was not going anywhere because of the LEAD guideline. After being ignored and petulantly reverted by him, I opened a RfC on the matter (to which I was smugly "dared" to do) which ran its full course and was completely unanimous to remove his bit from the lead. Duh. An unwillingness to even consider that he just might be straight-up wrong about something is not a good trait for an admin. Doc   talk  02:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious! In a recent supplement to the two word entry for Earth in the Encyclopedia Galactica (Mostly harmless), there is a  new entry for "Humans" submitted by an anonymous hitchhiker consisting of three words: Humans:  Smug and stubborn. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A... strange response. We're all humans - doesn't make us all ready for the bit. An admin enforcing policies he doesn't even understand is a bad thing. If there were some sort of admin "boot camp" to attend I would consider supporting a future RfA. As it is, just the history of edit-warring is troublesome. Doc   talk  03:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I originally voted neutral here, but this edit made me reevaluate you as badgering is not the way to go about life. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF!? <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  11:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, Kevin ... he makes a good point. Did you have other concerns with Binksternet besides the "recent" block? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant to piggy back that off the comments below. He is a good candidate in many regards, but I do not support digging up the voting histories of other users in order to ask them why they voted the way that they did, because that feels like badgering in my eyes. I know that this also may have been a mistake, and I am open to discussion on that, but the point is that a lot of Wikipedians have varying degrees of evaluation for candidates (maturity, edit content, etc.), and my support for Secret's RFA had no correlation to my neutral vote on this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I found my way here from Viriditas, who made a comment on my talk page a few days back. I am also in wikiproject conservatism although i have never even read the newsletters they post on my talk and only went to the site for the 1st time today. i am offended you attempted to delete the page, which i didnt know until coming here. i am also offended Viriditas is able to continue to suggest several members of this project have been canvased, and most offended you have done nothing to silence your supporters accusations. none of the above affected my decision. back in the day, i remember people dreading the responsibility of admin and only reluctantly accepting. you appear far too eager and address concerns not with a "you're right, i was a bit out of line", rather you continue to argue why you were actually right, in your opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. What aspect of the nominee's candidature are you basing your oppose against exactly? Perhaps you might have thought that this was Viriditas' RFA? But seriously, the nominee has put himself forward asking for extra tools to contribute to the project. You are entitled to your opinions, but it would be extremely useful to the candidate to let them know why they are wrong so they can correct themselves and contribute to the project better. <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T 09:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * uhhh.. perhaps you missed the first part of my response, i clarified my decision was not related to Vriditas above, none of the above affected my decision(meaning all the reasons i am personally disappointed with Binksternet), rather, i am basing it on: address concerns not with a "you're right, i was a bit out of line", rather you continue to argue why you were actually right, translation, the candidate may be defending behavior for which he was previous blocked, perhaps with the very editors/admins involved in the block rather than acknowledging the disruptive behavior and affirming it will not continue. the degree to which he addresses opposition in this endeavor, the responses to "oppose" votes was exactly the aspect i opposed. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would expect the bureaucrats to discount this !vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would expect the 'crats to discount it as well. I nom'd Binksternet; and after I gave evidence in an ArbCom case against Darkstar1st he shows here to oppose? I'm deeply disappointed in such vendetta-like behavior. Darkstar1st, rather than trying to retaliate, you should consider modifying your battleground behavior. Killer Chihuahua 12:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would expect this not to be discounted - clearly the person read the posts above, where Viriditas has been exceedingly active in charging everyone who !votes "oppose" with being CANVASSed - clearly his own CANVASS rather backfired here, and thus should not be ignored or discounted.  The desire of two of the most active proponents here in asking that "oppose" !votes be deleted or ignored is, IMHO, reprehensible indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't noticed, I'm in the neutral section, and opposes are meant to comment on the candidate, not the people who happen to comment here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I applaud the content contributions Binksternet has made, my experiences with him have uniformly negative. Aside from this, the concerns added above merely confirm my view that, based on his behavior and attitude towards those he disagrees with, he cannot be an impartial administrator at this point. I do not share concerns about edit warring insofar as it relates to blocks, however - the user hasn't been blocked in well over a year and I can assume in good faith that he won't be blocked in the future for it. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the battleground mentality referred to above. I experienced this myself just last September. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This strongly suggests that Binksternet's statement was exactly correct. - MrX 20:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. He reported me for edit warring, and the charge didn't stick. Also, the discussion indicates Binksternet doesn't really understand WP:SPS. Definitely not admin material at this stage. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um... you violated 3RR, and he called you on it. You're welcome to oppose for any reason, or none at all, but that incident doesn't reflect badly on anyone but you. MastCell Talk 04:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was a violation...wouldn't there have been a block or any sort of conclusion to the 3RR report. I would say that THAT particular report does not reflect badly on either editor. Face it. if a report is made and no action is taken the report was not valid. I myself would question the wording used per other concerns but hey...we all have our opinions?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that is not a true statement. There are many, many examples of valid reports being made where an action is not taken.  In other words, pages can be protected, users can be blocked, and reports can go stale—those are three instances where no action can be taken but a report can still be valid.  There are many more. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If there were no violation, an admin would have closed the report with "no violation". What happened here is that no admin reviewed the report before it was archived. This happens not infrequently, due to a lack of administrative attention. In this case, there was a clear 3RR violation - anyone can see that by simply looking at the report - but the report was not reviewed by an admin so no sanction was applied. That's not an exoneration - it's an indication that we need more admins to patrol WP:AN3. Like I said, StAnselm is free to oppose for any reason, but I'm also free to point out that this particular oppose seems particularly unfair. MastCell Talk 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I posted this knowing full well that my actions in that incident would be scrutinised. I didn't think I violated 3RR, because of the BLP exemption. It's a pity that there was no admin who could make a judgement on it. In any case, the two big concerns I have about User:Binksternet in this was his misunderstanding of/attitude towards WP:SPS and his comment that "only thing wrong with [the article] will be fixed when StAnselm is blocked". That screams out WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. So it wasn't so much that he reported me, although I would also question his judgement in the matter, and frankly, I don't think he can be trusted with the ability to block people for edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to your tenets of "do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven?" Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll consider it in a year - No matter what the guide for RfAs says, I see too many blocks to let it go so easily. In another year, if you show strong signs of reformation, I'll be willing to consider it, but now I have serous doubts. <font color="#007FFF">ö   Brambleberry  <font color="#9C9C9C">of   RiverClan  21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I am impressed with this editor's large amount of editing, but I am concerned about his (as I see it) expressed disdain for WP:BRD. I am still puzzling over his suggestion to me that BRD could reasonably be BRRRRRR etc. It just struck me as 'off' and an unfortunate path toward edit warring. Sorry, lord knows I'm not perfect, I'm not hoping for perfect admins but I feel that this editor isn't ready yet. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Many users pointed out that this user has arguments with many other users in talk pages. I looked over some of the contentious conversations in which Binksternet participated and I find this user to be direct but polite. However, I do not see this user doing something that I would expect an admin to do in a debate, and that is summarize the issue and call an uninvolved third party in to close the talk. A user even complained above that Binksternet called for a topic ban but then did not follow up with evidence; I think it would have been better not to call for anyone's ban at all. I would support Binksternet's adminship in the future but am opposing for now because if this user became admin then this user would have to exhibit new behavior in debates. Frankly, I want this user to keep having debates rather than closing them with administrative action, because I find this person's points more clear than others, but if this user wants to step out of debating and into administrative stuff then I would support in the next RfA.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the editors recent history is far better than their long history and that is a great improvement. I agree that this is an editor that, if resubmitted in 6 months to a year I would also support.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The account edits the same pages as other editors, and therefore is not an individual. Whether a sockmaster or sockpuppet, I cannot say. Perhaps ArbCom can continue to shed light by conducting a check-user? <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 00:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to post this somewhere else? It doesn't seem to make sense here. - MrX 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It shows he read some of the "discussions" above, and is making a point about them - I think that responding to every "oppose" !vote is a weird practice for a nominator. Collect (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No shit. This RfA is currently at a "D-minus" passing grade, while the other two active RfA's are at 99% passing grade. Why do you think that is? Canvassing or something else nefarious? No. Try again at a future date and stop embarrassing yourselves. Yeesh... Doc   talk  00:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is likely a reaction to completely unrelated drama involving Malleus Fatuorum, George Pondeevaro, and Arbcom performing checkusers on flimsy evidence without a formal SPI. I'd expect the closing 'crat to ignore the vote. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you are right: This heuristic cogitation should have been kept to ourselves, here and at ArbCom? <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctant oppose. Per significant concerns mentioned above. — stay ( sic ) ! 08:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Seems a bit too hot-headed for me, and the edit warring concerns me. If the user goes another year or two with a clean record, I may reconsider. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Battleground mentality, especially in regards to political areas.Marauder40 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Too combative. POV-pushing and history of behavior that I would rather not see in an admin. I would like to see admins who are more prone to resolving conflicts than starting them.--Slon02 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Agree with the users above. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Seems like a good editor, but I feel there are too many concerns raised to support.  Automatic  Strikeout   ( 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * I fail to see how it is relevant to badger a user by using their past votes in order to make a point. In light of that, I do not believe that you are not up for the job. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Not to mention my "block" was a self requested, it's a poor analogy using that example. Secret account 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doubtful he intentionally chose a self requested block. More likely an oversight on his part.  Simple mistake we all make sometimes.--v/r - TP 00:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Secret's block log is confusing, in that it does not indicate that the block was self-requested; it only indicates it was "requested at AN/I". --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the unblocking admin stated the reason for unblocking was "per user request, feeling better" indicating Secret had something to do with the original block. This RfA isn't about Secret, so we should probably stop analyzing his block log ;) T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Binksternet's misinterpretation of that block log was presented in a bad light, the block log became a topic. I hope we can all agree that it's not relevant. Mistakes do happen. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, they do, no question. For my part, my concern wasn't with Secret or anything like that - but merely that this candidate would dig into an editor's history to see how he or she !voted on another RFA, in order to question them about it in their own RFA. RFA is a bit of a crucible, and how a candidate edits their own RFA says a lot - and that edit bothered me. Wouldn't have blinked twice if it came from another editor, honestly. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's last block was in November 2011, which in most contexts is not considered "recent". If I were Binksternet (I'm not!) and I saw a comment about "recent" blocks, I believe I would wonder "How does this person define 'recent'?". Accordingly, it would be logical to look at that person's recent RFA contributions to see if they provided an indication. As you know, editing logs are public and thus available for perusal. Some of us would question the readiness of any admin candidate who did not peruse recent RFAs to help them understand what !voters and commenters are looking for. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral My concerns in the oppose section still stand. However, Binksternet demonstrated back then a rational and communicative mind and a willingness to correct himself and even now in the face of all of this opposition he has remained calm and taken it in stride.  If Binksternet were given the tools, which I don't see happening but let's hypothesize, and he were to make a mistake along the lines I've described, I can see him doing the appropriate and rational thing by backing up and undoing his actions instead of causing the community drama trying to sort it out.  That's a positive trait.  So my !vote changes to "I still have concerns, but I am convinced Binksternet will fix anything he breaks."--v/r - TP 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point here. I still think it depends on who he is interacting with. I am still not impressed. He has shown an ability to pigeon hole others and treat them in a manner I see as less than appropriate. It isn't that I don't like the editor. I don't know them. I can only judge by what I see and they are very active and sticks out. He/she has not always shown an ability for restraint. Not a horrible editor but not someone I would feel comfortable handing tools to.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support - edit warring and other related concerns are too much for me, despite having similar thoughts to TParis directly above. I do think the nominator could have done a much better job in tackling these concerns head-on (yes he has edit-warred, and it's not a great leap to assume that would play a large role in this RfA; so tell me "yes, he has edit-warred, but this is why my candidate deserves the tools") ... but it's a bit late now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support - Just utilize the information within the oppose section as a checklist for things to improve upon now and into the future. Also, thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I am highly impressed by Binksternet's obvious passion for content creation and, in general, the maintenance of quality articles.  His good work is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia successful; however, an admin needs to have a moderate temperament and a willingness to abide by Wikipedia policy even in difficult situations.  Although his last block was some time ago, I feel that further time is needed before Binksternet can be reevaluated.  Perhaps after several months to a year of clean, less combative editing, he would be a reasonable candidate.  <font color="Cyan" face="Verdana">dci  &#124; <font color="purple" face= "Times New Roman"> TALK   19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral While Binksternet is a great editor and one of Wikipedia's best contributors, I've noticed the occasional case of rattling cages here and there, and while I wouldn't oppose by any means, I'd like to see a bit more time pass with working in a non-admin capacity at the various technical boards in a drama-avoiding way before giving a thumbs-up. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I've found him to be a highly intelligent editor with a great variety of intellectual interests who obviously has created a vast amount of content for Wikipedia. However, he's something of a POV warrior, and on a couple of occasions when I have dealt with him he's had a tendency to insist that reliably sourced opinions which he finds convincing be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice with no in-line citation of the source. Examples can be found in the articles on Pro-life feminism where, until counter-evidence was demonstrated, he insisted that the article should retain a blanket statement saying that Irish pro-life feminists stayed out of the political issue of whether abortion should be legal; and in the article on Maafa 21 where he wanted Wikipedia to flatly state that the film was factually "wrong." Badmintonhist (talk)
 * 6) Neutral, largely per Dennis Brown. Dennis and I have both spent time looking closely at the discussions about the Conservatism WikiProject, and in most of those discussions, I actually agree on the substance with Binksternet's positions, and there's no question in my mind that they are the smart and productive editor described in so many of the other comments on this page. However, I find that I am able to discuss my concerns with the WikiProject participants without making it personal or unduly adversarial, whereas Binksternet is one of several editors whose discussion style does tend to lead to us-versus-them. I don't want to pile-on oppose, but those interactions leave me unable to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral I see no indication that this user would misuse the tools, however Binksternet's conduct concerns raised in the oppose section are concerning so I am unable to offer my support. TempName1 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral, mostly per Dennis Brown. Binksternet is a great editor and clearly knows his stuff, and I think he would probably do a decent job as an admin if he were given the bit now. However, I too am a little concerned about temperament. I'd be willing to support another run in a year's time, if he refrains from edit warring and if no temperament-related issues crop up. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Ultimately, I just find many of the oppose rationales to be too concerning for me to feel comfortable giving my support at this time. There are issues with his temperament that I view as incompatible with adminship. Kurtis (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral Reading through the supports and opposes, and looking at the various diffs, I can see arguments pro and con. On, balance, I'm inclined to think that the adage "Don't get in a mud-wrestling contest with a pig; you just get covered with mud, and the pig enjoys it" may explain at least some of the opposes. But, stepping into contentious articles with the intent to break logjams and help battling editors come to a resolution without wallowing in the mud yourself is a skill few have. When an editor has that skill, I enthusiastically support. I'm more lukewarm here. I'd lean toward support if the the mud was only up to Binksternet's knees instead of his waist. Fladrif (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the mud being a bit higher...say chest high, but you do make a good point.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I generally don't vote in RFA's that I am neutral on, but I feel compelled to leave a comment here. First off, I am sorry that you are experiencing so much drama here. Nobody should have to go through that. I have read much of the above, and there are many editors I respect in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral columns. I can tell you're a great editor, and that you consistently try to do the right thing. I was looking at your block log and I'm impressed by the way you would agree to 1RR on certain pages, and that you've kept it clean for over a year now. I don't want to be so flippant as to say "Come back in a year and I'll support". (Easily said, hard to do.) However, I don't think it would hurt if you did take some time to work on improving in some of the areas where people have concerns. If you want my advice, I would say to do this: Privately and voluntarily commit to a strict 1RR restriction on all articles. (You don't have to put the template on your userpage or anything.) Reverting obvious vandalism is of course an exception. Don't revert twice even if you know you're right. Always try to edit from a neutral point of view, and don't just edit when NPOV and your views happen to coincide. (I'm not saying you don't already do this...I just don't know you very well, and I'm trying to take into account the concerns of some of the opposition.) Wait for what you feel is a sufficient amount of time (it looks like many have recommended a year, I'd say at least half that) and then come back. I can't guarantee a success, but I know that would put me in the support section. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Recent edit warring. Edit warring just isn't something anyone should be doing. Cut that out and #2 will fly through. Other than that, the motley collection of grudge-holders, jealous onlookers desperate to find a way to oppose, and bloc-voters in the oppose section are not convincing in the slightest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not convincing to you perhaps, or the other cadre of editors who were incapable or lacking the intestinal fortitude to make a choice. See how that works both ways? I might as well suggest that the crats ignore your opinion at the same time. .   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that the crats ignore your vote. I'm suggesting that the candidate does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall, he has a pretty solid record, and some of the opposes are pretty flimsy. It's also a shame that this is turning into one of those contentious battles that have characterized Rfa. He would probably make an Ok admin, but I have a couple concerns stopping me from supporting. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Firm neutral This is a "lots of good stuff" and "lots of recent not so good stuff" situation. The not so good is not bad enough to oppose...there's certainly some potential.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Would prefer to support, as this is a good editor who would almost certainly make a good admin, not breaking the place up; the blocks are not really a concern, not being too recent; edit warring, however, is a red line. I also share Mark Arsten's opinion about the pattern of this RfA. Cheers, LindsayHello 03:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.