Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Binksternet

Binksternet's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC):

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Binksternet User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer First edit:	Jul 28, 2007 20:19:03 Unique pages edited:	25,539 Average edits per page:	3.64 Live edits:	91,959 Deleted edits:	1,030 Total edits (including deleted):	92,989

Namespace Totals

Article	54786	59.58% Talk	12487	13.58% User	1609	1.75% User talk	17049	18.54% Wikipedia	3704	4.03% Wikipedia talk	914	0.99% File	380	0.41% File talk	20	0.02% MediaWiki talk	6	0.01% Template	334	0.36% Template talk	592	0.64% Category	30	0.03% Category talk	20	0.02% Portal	28	0.03% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2007/07	7 	2007/08	399 	2007/09	697 	2007/10	736 	2007/11	676 	2007/12	600 	2008/01	588 	2008/02	639 	2008/03	772 	2008/04	1003 	2008/05	1067 	2008/06	505 	2008/07	806 	2008/08	877 	2008/09	802 	2008/10	756 	2008/11	1284 	2008/12	1263 	2009/01	939 	2009/02	979 	2009/03	2074 	2009/04	2241 	2009/05	1669 	2009/06	1652 	2009/07	1729 	2009/08	1631 	2009/09	1274 	2009/10	1397 	2009/11	1704 	2009/12	1816 	2010/01	2831 	2010/02	2287 	2010/03	2632 	2010/04	1921 	2010/05	1355 	2010/06	1078 	2010/07	1553 	2010/08	861 	2010/09	1061 	2010/10	1691 	2010/11	1432 	2010/12	1682 	2011/01	1409 	2011/02	1510 	2011/03	1976 	2011/04	1363 	2011/05	1052 	2011/06	1141 	2011/07	1544 	2011/08	1259 	2011/09	1394 	2011/10	1412 	2011/11	1564 	2011/12	1924 	2012/01	1992 	2012/02	1294 	2012/03	1794 	2012/04	1202 	2012/05	1354 	2012/06	1163 	2012/07	1062 	2012/08	1281 	2012/09	1401 	2012/10	1625 	2012/11	1520 	2012/12	1835 	2013/01	1655 	2013/02	1598 	2013/03	669

attacks on those expressing their opinion
and appear to violate any reasonable behaviour norms for discussion on this RfA. Collect (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussing an RfA candidate is not a vote and questions and concerns about the shared ideological nature of opposition is not an "attack". Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is an attack. It's called ad hominem.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. Asking if an editor had been canvassed is not an attack in any way.  Now that you've been corrected, I hope you learned something today.  Furthermore, I directly addressed their argument in the first sentence and my question was not connected or related to that argument. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...questions and concerns about the shared ideological nature of opposition... is about as poster-child a phrase as one can get for ad-homniem. Put down the shovel  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerns about canvassing and vote stacking as a collective bloc have been ongoing since 2006. The original WP:Conservative notice board was shut down due to vote-stacking and was later resurrected as WP:WikiProject Conservatism. The majority of the opposes in this RfA are being made by members and allies connected to this group. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So this "voting bloc" is opposing the RfA of one of their own members? Someone should tell they are doing it all wrong.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're deliberately missing the point. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we all have our own opinions regarding "bloc's" of editors existing, but I don't see the usefulness in bringing it up in this context. Arkon (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * After just now observing Viriditas' comment regarding Arzel's first-ever Rfa !vote after many years of editing here, I take the point that Viriditas is making above. Obviously, I do not believe that every opposing !vote in this Rfa is being bloc-driven. But a case can be made that the closing crat should take a serious look at Viriditas' legitimate concerns, which Arzel's action causes me to raise an eyebrow towards. Arzel's !vote, to be frank, sticks out like a sore thumb. Viriditas states he has other examples: I am interested in hearing further on this matter. Jus  da  fax   06:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think mentioning his candidacy at such a board is quite bad. If there's a point of view shared by most members of the project (like "conservatism is good") and the candidate is known for supporting or opposing this point of view, it's definitely what is described as canvassing.--Razionale (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Might you show us the precise post on such a board? I did not find it at first perusal now.  Cheers.   I do not follow it, and would like to see how it is worded. Collect (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So far no (visible) post has been made, although there was already one for Military history.--Razionale (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean Viriditas must have seen an invisible post then for those dang "conservatives"? Dear me!  And he wants !votes to be erased because of a non-existent post?  And people can take this sort of (expletive) seriously at all?  Collect (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, your style here, which I find veers from sarcastic to bombastic, does you little credit. The question that Viriditas has made clear in this Rfa is one of off-wiki communication. Viriditas has also mentioned above a documented history of previous issues, of which I was unaware, regarding vote stacking. You have already denied in your oppose, in strong terms, being contacted or connected with such an effort, but in starting this Talk page thread, you open a more general issue. Viriditas states that a "majority" of the opposes are coming from WPC, and I am interested in his expanded views and in hearing other voices on this topic, which I do indeed consider serious, if for no other reason than if the allegations are unfounded, they should be put to rest.  Jus  da  fax   14:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied to grossly improper posts from Viriditas which made incorrect statements about me and others, and stated that CANVASSing occurred on a WikiProject when such did not occur and you berate me for my tenor? The fact is that the claims about a huge number of opposes coming from being CANVASSED is a blatant lie and fabrication, and his accusation that I managed to be CANVASSED when I am not even a member of either WikiProject (Conservatism or Military History) I found demeaning and disgusting.   And I would note that he has providd zero evidence for his charges which to me suggest that they are, indeed, "unfounded" s you gentelly word it.   By the way I HAVE HAD NO OFF-WIKI CANVASSING EITHER ABOUT THIS AT ALL .  Is there any way for me to make this any clearer at all?  If you were "charged" with such a lie, would you simply roll over?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the not a ballot template appropriate here?
I ask this b/c RfA, like ArbCom elections, are one of the few places where there are explicit numeric thresholds. In that context, it seems deceptive. Surely we can warn against canvassing without engaging in telling untruths. Ray Talk 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Requests for adminship: " This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion." Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't add the vote template. The "thresholds" are not as explicit as you might think.  To expand on what Viriditas said, Bureaucrats are free to throw out any votes they choose, support or oppose.  The numbers we see at the top of the page when the !voting ends is not necessarily the same numbers they use, nor are the numbers themselves the sole determining criteria.  You can trust they will do the smart thing when closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll remove it. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?
This edit appears to be WP:CANVASSing. Glrx (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it does look exactly like Vote-banking, which "involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." per the same source page linked above.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the poster would assume that fans of military history would support an RfA candidate on the sole basis that he/she is also a fan of military history, which is what vote-banking seems to imply. Perhaps someone will support for that reason (I'm sure there have been stranger reasons) but I don't think this was intentional vote-banking. Green  green  green  red 02:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Amadscientist, do you have reason to believe that the active participants of WikiProject Military History are somehow beholden to Binksternet? I would like to better understand your reasoning. - MrX 03:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I do not have any reason to believe anything. As I clearly stated it looks exactly like it. Does that mean it is? Of course not. But it is clearly not canvassing. Yes, the projects have a common interest and could have "the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage". Now, view point and common interest are not exactly the same thing but the question is better posed to the editor that placed the post. Is this an expectation that those familiar with the editor will have a more neutral reaction or less or not at all?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I guess only Nick-D would be able to explain the reason for notifying that project, not that it really matters. - MrX 03:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same notice should be posted at other projects where he is a member as well?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it...unless, of course, you're trying to make a point.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I came across the post and wondered if it was canvassing. I looked at the factors in WP:Canvassing. I did not see that the project "directly related to the topic under discussion", and the message raised questions about bias and partisanship (votestacking). I posted here and at User talk:Nick-D. Nick-D responded on his talk page that it was normal practice, but he also edited the post. Glrx (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The !votes after that post appear to be normally reasoned and from active editors not particularly associated with "Military History" and not biassed in any way whatsoever about that topic.  And not related to "conservatism" as was asserted loudly by Viriditas who made the egregious shout of "CANVASS" in attacking editors.   The "edit" you stress was the removal of an adjective which, AFAICT, has absolutely no bearing here.  In short - so far zero evidence of anything improper whatsoever, and this bit about attacking editors nd saying theire opinions should be thrown out is absurd.  Any 'crat who tried to do that would be out on his ear from the "evidence" given.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite questions (and outright claims) of canvassing, there is zero evidence of any such activity. There is something called a "watchlist" that would account for all of the non frequent participants opining on this RfA. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, and with apologies to everyone concerned, I have removed the notice of this RfA from the talk page of the military history WikiProject. It has been suggested that such notices do not constitute "canvassing"; I disagree.  Such RfA notices serve no purpose other than to attract additional participants to the RfA, and are inappropriate, regardless of whether they are posted by supporters or opponents of a particular RfA candidate.


 * In discussing what may be appropriate neutral notices of other discussions, the introductory text of WP:CANVASSING states:


 * "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.


 * "However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."


 * In a separate subsection of WP:CANVASSING, the policy specifically describes when it may be appropriate to place a discussion notice on a WikiProject talk page:


 * "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion."


 * If someone can explain to me how the scope and subject area of WikiProject Military history is "directly related to the topic under discussion" (i.e. this RfA), then you may might have a colorable argument that this is not impermissible canvassing. However, the intent of this RfA notice is clear enough from its original phrasing which specifically mentions that the RfA candidate is a member of the Wikiproject in a not-so-subtle attempt to elicit greater RfA participation from the project's members.  Yes, the notice was subsequently modified, but its intent was clear enough.


 * I have taken this action not to chastise anyone, nor to seek any remedy against anyone, but to protect the candidate, to preserve the integrity of this RfA, and to eliminate any taint that might subsequently accrue to the candidate.


 * If anyone, including the administrator who posted a notice of disagreement on my user talk page, feels with 100% certainty that the subject area of WikiProject Military history is "directly related to" this RfA, they may revert my removal of the RfA notice. I am confident that my interpretation is the correct one.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, if other notices of this RfA have been posted elsewhere, please notify me here or on my user talk page, and I will take the heat for removing them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the "What links here" link on any page to see where it has been linked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, I have reviewed the "what links here" pages and saw no additional WikiProject talk pages or other inappropriate links. If you know of any, please let me know here or or my user talk page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that posting notices about this RfA on project pages and such, whether it is or isn't canvassing, is inappropriate under most circumstances. The candidate placing a notice on their own talk page is acceptable (I did myself) but not required.  I don't really care about pointing fingers or assigning blame, just about keeping the RfA neutral, which means that anyone who is generally interested in RfAs already knows about it, and what we don't need the drama-mongering.  I think removing them is appropriate and doesn't require an admin, just as my closing the discussion above isn't an "admin action". Lets just let the RfA run its course, under the same circumstances and guidelines we expect of any RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger that, Dennis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but only one editor made accusations of canvassing. Since I don't hang out in these parts, I'll defer to your wisdom.  Shouldn't you be out tilling the earth now?  It's a beautiful day down your neck of the woods right now.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there appear to be two editors that have that have raised the issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should be, but had to work all day. Actually, soil is turned but needs to be disced, and the neighbor owns the tractor.  As for canvassing, again, I didn't want to try to guess anyone's motivations here, just saying it really isn't appropriate, so it is best to just remove them and not make a big deal out of it.  I'm going to assume the best of faith, which is easy enough to do here, and prefer to just support correcting the problem without adding any drama.  There is nothing to be gained by debating the issue, and the spirit of the policy (if not the letter) strongly discourages these kinds of notifications.  Again, no one intended to break any rules, so I don't see any need to make a bigger issue out of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Good faith mistakes should be overlooked.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose by confirmed sockpuppet
The following has been transferred from the project page: --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Too much issue advocacy; too much POV; too much discourteous and non-collegial behavior . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.89.148 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 March 2013 — 174.21.89.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Remove oppose from blocked sockpuppet.  See Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving as struck - but noting that the person was just posted at SPI after this removal (6:43 is almost an hour after Viriditas's removal of the !vote) by Binksternet himself, and that not determination that the person is a "sock" has been made there.  Not an hour before anyone makes the open accusation.   I would trust no one would start SPIs on every oppose and then remove all of them  and this person might be a sock, but this removal is, shall we say, "premature"? Collect (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna be bold and unstrike (and sign) this !vote, as the user's SPI status has not yet been determined. Since I'm on the Support side I assume no one will make too many assumptions about my motive. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good move to protect the integrity of the RfA given the fact that the IP is on the same ISP in the same location as another Belchfire sock, which Viriditas identified more than three weeks ago. - MrX 13:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why add the SPA tag, though? The user(s) at that IP address have made edits to 6 other articles over just the last 7 day period. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP passes the General test. Of course, they are also likely a sock. - MrX 13:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I striked coz the evidence is convincing. Pass a Method   talk  13:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we can surely wait until the SPI report is resolved -- as far as I can tell is a "static IP" which means that it is not a "variable" one - Seattles, last I looked, has a lot of users - and assuming all Seattle Static IPs to be Belchfire is a violation of AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not just the location but the edits are similar too. Pass a Method   talk  14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Has everyone forgotten the rule that "While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote"." ? --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had, and I shall now be bold enough to refresh my knowledge. Thank you. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) You might want to turn your ear to the loud quacking and review the archived SPI case before raising this straw puppet argument. No one claimed that "all Seattle Static IPs [are] Belchfire". - MrX 14:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * given the fact that the IP is on the same ISP in the same location  sure the heck looked like it. Personally, I do not see the same extreme similarity you see, but our opinions are not relevant - what is important is whether the specific IP has been used by that specific user - "static IPs" are, weirdly enough, "static" as a rule. Stfg is, moreover, correct about IP votes in general.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, so-called static IPs can frequently be changed, for example by changing a router's MAC address. Of course there are other possibilities, such as editing from a nearby location. - MrX 14:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That procedure works for DHCP, static is usually a bit different.  But this is silly.  Of course this ip is almost certainly a sock of Belchfire.  Of course we should wait for the SPI to run its course before striking here.  And we all should AGF that the crats reviewing this will not be swayed by a comments by one ip.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At WP:SPI, I've determined that this a clear sock of Belchfire and have taken appropriate action there. Someone else should feel free to move this entire thread to the talk page.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)