Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Banaticus

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

Banaticus[edit]

Final (28/26/16); ended 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC) - no consensus has been demonstrated. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Banaticus (talk · contribs) I am a WikiGnome. I mainly work on reverting vandalism, but I also occasionally throw my hat into the ring and handle abuse reports, review articles, help people on IRC, answer {{help me}} requests, answer semi-protected edit requests... and sundry other things. I'm also one of the Wikipedia:Ambassadors. The time where I am right now is 6:36am 22 May 2024.

Am I more of an Eventualist than I am an Immediatist (unless it looks like self-serving non-notable spam or patent nonsense, which should be dealt with swiftly)? The answer is implicit in the question (namely, phrasing it as a question instead of a statement should emphasize that I favor eventualism over immediatism). This does presume that a person isn't working under a deadline. Those who are editing as part of a school class kind of have to be immediatists, their grade is assigned on how the article is "now", not on what it could be later.

I created several userboxes. Given SUL... many of the first created are on the verge of obsolescence, but I hope the latter-created userboxes will have more permanence.

I've created some music files. Banaticus (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Lua scripting. It's right up my alley, all that technical nitty-gritty mumbo-jumbo that pretty much nobody's ever going to see but that'll just make the English Wikipedia that much more of an amazing place. I look forward to being able to take the chart template and rework it with lua to just make it all work beautifully, simply, and swiftly. I also intend to redo the cite templates. Seriously, I've been working with them on paper for several months now, trying to get a concise format for AutoWikiBrowser so that I can start running through pages and automatically replacing most cite templates with actual citations (once people put in a citation, it's usually always done and over with and would greatly speed up page loading). Cite templates were part of why the Barack Obama page was taking as long as three-five minutes to load a couple years ago. However, the citation templates are a gigantic snarled ball of yuck and I have yet to untangle them fully. With lua, however, shoot, the possibilities are endless.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pleased with my single-section Ancestry revamp for Cleopatra (yes, the famous one). She has a "seriously messed up" family tree (more like a tangled bush). When I first came across the article, it used the more typical family tree stemma. This was rather confusing, as her ancestry is quite tangled, which necessitates quite a bit of ancestral duplication, so I redid it using the {{family tree}} template. A day or so later, I changed family tree to the {{chart}} template, which "generates lower preprocessor node count." I did it all on paper, was almost done, realized that I missed one uncle, and had to redo the whole thing again before typing it into the computer. It was made more complex because she is descended from 11 people, including three uncle-niece and two brother-sister relationships, and all of them are descended from the same two people.
You can also take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contact and Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contactsemiedit for the people/articles I've helped resolve edit conflicts (but only since I started using those templates). Then there's my ambassador work.
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: Of course I've been involved in edit conflicts, I've been around for years. Even though I try to avoid drama, eventually I revert something that looks like vandalism and someone takes umbrage. Or I'll try to settle one of those oft recurring disputes you know what I mean? I do occasionally make mistakes as well -- I'm human. :) When I make a mistake, I apologize and revert myself. If I ever get into a situation where I'm all hot and bothered, I'll just step back and cool down.
Additional Question by Soap
4. You seem like a nice person but I have to admit that the answer to Q1 is bothering me. Is that really all you plan to do, and if so could you explain for those of us not in the know what having admin access would enable you to do that you can't do now?
A: I'd likely also work on things like helping protected edit requests, but probably not for a few months. I've been around Wikipedia for a long time and my interests and focus tend to shift over time. I'm not saying that lua scripting-related work is the only thing that I would ever do, but it would be my focus at this time. Lua scripting in an admin-capacity looks like it will be quite a lot of work in the immediate future, however. Module:String, for instance, is protected because it's transcluded (called) in Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. As lua is used in more and more templates to do things like ease the crazy string handling templates which currently exist, and as modules become longer and lengthier because each "type" of lua call has to call the same module (all String calls would go to Module String, for instance), lua modules will likely all become protected within the next couple months or so as they start getting called by some article or area which is itself protected, which will make extending lua more difficult. Banaticus (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question by Wifione Message
5. I second Soap's views on your being a nice guy. I also thank you for applying for the RfA. Do kindly answer a few queries I have. (a) Why do you reply to bots which leave messages on your talk page? (b) Why did you make this edit that seemingly has no source? (c) Why did you revert here identifying the edit as vandalism? Thanks.
A: (a) A bot has its own account so that bot actions are more easily discernible from the user's regular edits, but the bot is still the proxy or representative of the user (the user is still responsible for the edits that their bot makes). I tend to respond to a person's proxy as though I was responding to the person in question. (b) It seemed like a good-sized paragraph from the article had been deleted with no cause, and that he was probably expelled from the government for a valid reason. Upon review, however, since there was no reference, it seems like it could be a BLP problem so it's probably a good thing that someone took it out again. {c} I believe it was because it was a Scribd document. Pretty much the only things I've seen at Scribd until now have seemed to be copyright thefts or non-encylopedic self-published material which in either case shouldn't be used as a reference. The given Scribd document does seem to be an authentic music score which would help provide verifiability to material in the article, though. Banaticus (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius
6. I see that you've expressed an interest in helping out with protected edit requests, which makes me very glad as we could do with more admins working in this area. To give me an idea of how you would cope with this, could you tell me how you would respond to the following three protected edit requests? (They are all open as of the time of writing.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Template talk:Infobox album/color Talk:Asymmetric warfare Talk:Warren Kinsella[reply]
A: I responded at those individual places by doing what I can. I don't think any of them require an edit to the protected page. In the first case, the user should seek consensus from the WikiProject. In the second and third cases, the users need references. I did have to add a new protected edit request to fix a typo: "Kinsella supported Sandra Pupatello in the leadership convetion tht chose a successor to McGuinty." "convetion tht" should be changed to "convention that" (both words are misspelled).
Additional question from Ritchie333
7. Above, you say "the citation templates are a gigantic snarled ball of yuck and I have yet to untangle them fully". Could you outline the procedure by which you would attempt to change the templates, what specifically you think should be changed in them, and how you might handle objections to your changes?
A: The citation templates as a whole call a massive amount of templates. To quote pop culture, it's like a cake. Or maybe an onion. Yeah, that's it, citation templates are like onions and they make the server cry. Basically, wikimarkup can't really parse text and make intelligent decisions. Sure, we have ifexist, "if these match", "if/then" and switch statements, but they're incredibly complex. I'd start cutting down on the number of templates which are in use by editing templates to not call other templates when they're only calling the other template to make a decision which the original template should be able to make on its own, if that's clear. If there were objections, I'd chat with people about their objections and look for consensus. I don't think there would be any objections to edits like that, though. Banaticus (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Plutonium27
8. One of your created userboxes is "This user is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."[1]. Are you a member of this church? I note it has not been included on your userpage unlike the other userboxen you created. This is unsurprising as editors seeking adminship now invariably refrain from adding - or remove exisiting - userboxes expressing religious and/or political beliefs and affiliations. Whereas these are generally held to be a personal matter, I believe such an affiliation could be pertinent, given your reason for seeking adminship, your interest in ancestry (per your A to Q2) and the controversies over LDS interest in data access (such as for the International Genealogical Index).Plutonium27 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Woah! Please Ignore - I'll strike thru as soon as I can find the edit to do so - I confused you with the candidate below and his reasons for wanting adminship. Your religion has no relevance else. Apologies. Long day...Plutonium27 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, I believe you did mean to direct this question to me. I think that's a personal question. I've never stated on this wiki whether or not I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I haven't put that template on my userpage except as part of a "here's what I created" section. In fact, if you go back and look at the history of my userpage, that's not the only religious userbox that I created. Where that other one ended up, I have no idea. The big shift of userboxes out of template space and into user space several years ago (before then, the general idea was that any oft-used template should be in template space and userspace was only for your personal stuff that nobody else would be using) didn't move them to the original creator's userspace, they tended to be moved to the userspace of the person who was doing the moving. I wasn't involved in that moving except for "rescuing" at least one that I created (the LDS one) from another person's userspace. I should recreate that Roman Catholic one, I notice that nobody since seems to have recreated a Roman Catholic userbox, although given that it's been several years perhaps nobody is interested in it anymore. I became interested in ancestry because of my grandmother (who was head of the Ventura County Geneological Society a while ago), and also because Cleopatra had such a "seriously messed up family" to put it mildly. Anyway, I feel that my religion is a somewhat personal matter, and that none of my edits related to any religious matters have been made in a manner contrary to standard Wikipedia practice. What about the IGI? I've heard it mentioned before, but today is (as far as I remember), the first time I've ever looked at its Wikipedia page. I didn't see my name in the talk page there (which apparently has little enough traffic that it's never been archived since I started editing Wikipedia back in 2005).[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • You don't need to be an admin to edit modules? Amalthea 01:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So that I won't be repeating myself, I've edited this reply to say that I've expanded on the answer that was here when I responded to the second half of a new 4th question up above. Banaticus (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Why not? His contributions are good. Cmach7 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't see why not, but I do advice a little more details on the first question, or you might not get much support. User intends to work on templates and many of these are protected for only sysop users so even that requires the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Why not - looks like a good editor with good intentions. Vacation9 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support - Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support - doesn't seem to check all of my boxes, but I think the editor will likely be a net positive. Go Phightins! 03:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per WP:NETPOS, although more consistent activity would be nice.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Sure.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would do fine as an admin. Inka888 04:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I spent the last forty-five minutes going through this user's contributions and past history and the only thing that I can ask is why they have never been through an RfA before? Definitely meets my RfA criteria. Trusilver 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I think he can be trusted with the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'm not that very affiliated with this user much but I think this user has good potentials for being an admin here. Could be trusted. Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Having gone through his contributions (perTrusilver) I am also certain that he will be a useful recipient of the tools. Short opposes talking about immaturity seem specious, given his (almost) eight-year history here, not to mention his obvious editing skill. It might be sensible to expand the answer to Q1 - not everyone here will know what Lua is, let alone what you can do with it here.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support The candidate is light on content-building and isn't the most articulate chap around here. That said, he's a hard worker, even-tempered, helpful and will be a net positive. He's stated a valid reason for needing the mop, and the likelihood of him abusing it is low. Majoreditor (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Can't see why not. Sure the nom could be better but seems like a good guy and I don't think Banaticus is likely to break the wiki. What the heck is a Banaticus anyway? --regentspark (comment) 02:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in 6th grade, I had to do an assignment on my name. I asked my dad where my name came from and he jokingly responded, "Well, we originally wanted to name you Banaticus..." A decade later, I was looking to create a website. My real name, Bart, was pretty much universally unavailable. I was sitting around trying to come up with something which could be remembered, fairly easily spelled out phonetically (which ruled out the use of my last name), and I remembered that name my dad had come up with all those years earlier. Strangely enough, banaticus.com was available. After a few years of use, when I didn't renew on time, a cybersquatter snatched it up for a year and wanted far more money for it than I was willing to pay. I never picked the website back up again. Anyway, that's where my name came from. Banaticus (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that http://www.banaticus.com is currently a 404; perhaps you could pick it up again. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Thanks for sorting out Cleopatra's ancestry. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Candidate seems like a net positive, although I trust that their boldness (which is appreciated) will be tempered with insight into their limitations. Miniapolis 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support As far as I am concerned, nomination statements and edit statistics should not be solely used to judge an admin candidate. Based on the candidate's contributions and what the candidate wants to do with admin tools, I support this candidate. Suraj T 12:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support After eight years of generally problem-free and completely block-free editing, is he going to start breaking the wiki now? He needs the tools for a specific task and is planning to work on other tasks too, so let's let him be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support But please be very very careful playing around with the cite templates. In fact, if you're going to play around with something that transcludes to tens of thousands of articles, be really careful, please. RayTalk 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I trust you and I would vote support even without the Lua script protection issue. As an aside I didn't even know the Module namespace existed until I saw this RfA; I assume it must've been a very low-key software rollout. —Soap— 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Gives me a good vibe and I think the opposes are trying to make every Wikian too cookie cutter. I'm actually not really int gnoming or patrolling. But I liked that the fellow seemed like a real person (really!) and not just some Wiki-drone spouting policy. The comments about smilies were cool as about his experience with part time employees. I don't think there is any danger from the fellow and I think the project will do well to have some "civilians" (normal people). Who cares if he has a job and spends time in the woods. Very cool actually.TCO (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support it looks like he won't do any harm, and he could user the mop. He looks like an ideal candidate. — nerdfighter(academy) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support After cogitating over oppose argueents, I choose to support Bart's request. If he is too bold, he may find a prominent spot in the Village stocks. A strength of Wikipedia is that even an overambitious and under-tested change to a template used throughout the encyclopedia can be reverted. I trust that he would not intentionally harm WP and judge that he is likely to be a significant help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools--rogerd (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support rogerd, above, has said exactly what I was going to say. The reasons given below for opposing this candidacy are entirely unconvincing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. net positive Dlohcierekim 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 100% Support I just believe in you (like really much). 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKyser22 (talk • contribs)
  28. Support. I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments that turning on the sysop bit here would result in harm or even danger to the project as a result of some supposed recklessness on the part of the nominee. I also don't see the sporadic editing history as a problem either; there is no requirement for adminship to be a full time job, and no requirements for candidates to have worked on Wikipedia full time either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose The nomination statement reads like a load of baloney. There is no clue yet as to exactly what this candidate seeks to do with a trust-based, lifetime position and a whole lot more detailed scrutiny on their policy knowledge will be needed to convince me to change this !vote. Leaky Caldron 10:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloney is a strong statement... Why don't you ask Banaticus a set of policy/guideline based questions? Wifione Message 10:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Baloney describes it very well. Besides, 9,000 edits since 2005 is not much, 10% of it on his own user page, only 43 % in article space. Besides, slipshod editing, and then going through the apologizing routine. An admin (claiming 8 years experience) should be a little more careful. Kraxler (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my edit summary on the talk page of this RFA says that I only have 75 edits on my user page. Perhaps you saw the total edits in user space number, 852 -- I think that number includes my 13 pages of archived user talk history, because back in 2008 I started archiving my user talk pages as User:Banaticus/archive#, instead of User talk:Banaticus/archive# (now archived as User:Banaticus/archiveYear). I kind of wish I'd responded before there were a few "per above" oppose statements. C'est la vie, that's life. Banaticus (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mistaken there. "User" edits do not include "User talk" edits. The 10% User page edits include edits of your actual user page (not your own talk page) and edits to essays and sandboxes (all pages that start like "User:XXX/...". As an admin candidate you should be able to read an edit count statement. Anyway, there are another 30% of user talk edits. With 43% of article edits, what are you talking so much about? Kraxler (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Struck. Kraxler (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How many edits do you expect this person to have? This person has been around for over 7 years and has been editing consistantly over the past couple years. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per Above, extremely underwhelming nomination statement, poor editing statistics.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Immaturity and jumbled prose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. Intothatdarkness 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, I'm sorry to say. While we need a certain number of admins with the expertise to work on the interface, they also need to recognize that, first, the interface is still subject to community consensus same as everything else; and second, changes that affect hundreds or thousands of pages require a considerably greater amount of discussion and care than those that do not. This exchange from earlier today shows a somewhat casual attitude, and this earlier one, somewhat similarly, proposes a complex change to a massively used template for a relatively trivial purpose. This user, in short, makes me nervous. I'd feel better if there were a nomination from one of our current admins who frequently edit complex templates and interface pages. Chick Bowen 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you totally. Why on earth would we want an admin that *gasp* acts boldly and just goes out and gets things done when they should know damned well that they need to get with the program and hand it off to the bureaucracy to blabber about it until no one cares anymore, being absolutely sure to get all the opinions of the Wikipedians that know nothing about the subject but want to show how important they are to the system by bestowing their glorious Opinion upon us. Okay... sarcasm aside. I understand the process I just outlined is the traditional Wikipedia method of not getting things done, but the examples you have shown above don't strike me as negatives... quite the opposite. Being bold is a virtue here. The encylopedia, both the visible and the not so visible parts of it, are no carved into clay tablets. If there something someone has a problem with... they can revert and discuss it. I would rather see an administrative candidate that sees something and says "I can make this better!" and then does it, rather than a candidate that says "I can make this better! I better see what the Idiot Committee has to say about it first!" Trusilver 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly support being bold in editing articles. Templates with hundreds of thousands of transclusions, not so much. Chick Bowen 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What was wrong with my attitude? Was I mean or hateful or derogatory, were there any written procedures which I did not follow? As to This exchange from earlier today I don't see what I did wrong and I started a discussion on that topic there. As for this earlier edit, yes, I proposed an edit for a relatively trivial purpose. Do we now ban all edits except for non-trivial edits? We all know people with "unique" signatures. Shouldn't the ability exist to display their name in the accustomed manner for easier differentiation in user lists such as in the http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program (and wherever that template is used)? Regardless of my opinions, I think this should be a shining example of my accustomed manner of seeking consensus, and if consensus is not gained, to eventually just let the matter go without continuing to beat a dead horse. Banaticus (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretfully Oppose as per Chick Bowen. I would expect a candidate for the mop, with the main intention of affecting such technical nature and far-reaching consequences, to be much more careful with his edits (or in this case, his attempted edits). It is a shame, as I feel we need more technical editors, and more WikiGnomes, and in the future I hope Banaticus applies when he is a little less bold on such fundamental pages (although WP:BOLD does have a time and place). iComputerSaysNo 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Chick Bowen. I don't feel as if I can trust the candidate with the tools. SpencerT♦C 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I want admins with clarity and reserve. I'm not seeing clarity. The Q1/Q3 answers suggest the candidate doesn't know what's important to say here. I'm not seeing reserve. Q5 has an incident where a good faith edit was tagged as vandalism. I'm pleased to see lots of AIV reports, but I haven't scanned them. Banaticus isn't seeking the bit to fight vandals but rather scripting. The tone for Q7/citation templates isn't reassuring. I can read the comments a couple ways. I'm happy with neither. Stradivarius's neutral is a good summary. I commend the candidates response, but I'm more cautious. I'm worried that fixes will break other things. Glrx (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you suggest is important to say in Q1? Regarding Q3, it's impossible to edit off and on for eight years and not ever have anyone disagree with your edits. Everyone that's edited for that long has an edit somewhere in their past that someone took umbrage with. I'm pretty mellow, though, and I don't fan the flames. If something is unequivocal spam, it's gone. If I made a mistake, I revert myself. If it's anywhere in between, then we start talking about the issue. What else would you like to see there in Q3? :) Banaticus (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answers understand the audience and convey the information the audience needs. What do your answers tell this audience? Yes, someone who has made 3K typical article edits will have encountered a fair share of controversy; we are interested in how that controversy is handled. Someone who seeks the admin bit should also carry over some of their article editing skills when answering questions. In addition, answers are read not only for what they say, but also how they say it. Study your answers and consider how they would be viewed by the audience. Glrx (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Reply to Chick Bowen. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I think from a personal perspective, Bart is a great person to have around. That said, I wish he was actually around a bit more. The sporadic editing is disconcerting for me. I'm also in agreement with Chick. I would rather see a consistent editing history before taking the bit and running with it. At this point, I don't feel confident that he is ready to take on the role of admin. Respectfully, Cindy(talk to me) 02:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite likely that I won't be around more often. I understand your decision, even while I don't really like it. :) I mainly work in a camp environment, which during the summer tends to put me pretty much entirely out of internet access out in the woods (and I haven't seen any edit links when I browse Wikipedia on my phone). Normally, during the week I work a crazy amount of hours and am gone fairly often. I do have occasional days where I can sit back and binge on internet access, but not near as many as I'd like. Again, I can understand your reluctance to support someone who doesn't structure their life around the activity for which they're applying to have more responsibility. It's a decision I've had to face when employees, who because of work or family, have chosen to only be part time and who have come asking for more responsibility, which I'm usually willing to grant after review, but I always find myself wishing that they were full time employees. Banaticus (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Like Soap said, you're clearly a nice guy. What's shaking me up a little is that you identify as an Eventualist. I'd rather see admins react swiftly to more than simply spam or nonsense. Also, five and a half thousand edits is a little too low in edit count for someone who has been around since 2005, and like the other opposers your sporadic editing raises a serious question. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, per Chick Bowen, above. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per all above. LlamaAl (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose discussing that new editors are missing but reverting (good/AGF) edits is a bad idea. (so per Q5) mabdul 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I can't agree with NETPOS or "won't break the wiki" supports when the user is talking about getting involved restructuring one of our most important templates. I have no problem with the sporadic editing, mine has been similar, and the fact that you return after each busy spell shows dedication to the project Jebus989✰ 00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: Nothing against the candidate, but with heavily used templates, it would be better to keep the business of doing the coding separate from that of deciding when a change is well enough tested to go live. Opposing on the issues raised by Boing! said Zebedeee (Neutral 7) and Kurtis (Neutral 8). --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, coding and deciding when a change is well enough tested to go live should be somewhat separate, which is why Dcoetzee created Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Lua recently. Banaticus (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose: First off, I don't think administrators should wait to take necessary action (you mentioned you were an Eventualist), and I don't see a whole ton of activity in AfD or WP:UAA, which are key areas I look for in potential admins. Don't get me wrong, you are a great editor, but I don't see you necessarily being a great admin. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose The sporadic editing does not bother me. People have real lives and since Wikipedia is project, largely based on writing, when inspiration or you take up a focus, then the edits can peak. The quality of the edits is also not unfavourable but I find the care and diplomacy in some of the actions a little to be lacking. Mkdwtalk 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I really don't know why the user wants to be a admin, seems like he was advoiding answering the first couple of questions. Also the user has not been consistent with his edits. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very regretful oppose per Chick Bowen, but I might be persuaded to change. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 00:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per above. —stay (sic)! 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Chick Bowen. I also don't like the outcome of the candidate's adoption efforts, although that's a relatively minor issue. - ʈucoxn\talk 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Go look at the talk pages of those I adopted. How did I respond? What don't you like about those outcomes that you feel is my fault? Banaticus (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with DarkfireII13 (talk · contribs) and DarkfireII2 (talk · contribs) is very unfortunate. The editor got blocked indef. twice and had talk page access removed. I can't definitively say that it was completely your fault. It was also a while ago. However, it's an unfortunate outcome for an adoptee. - ʈucoxn\talk 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Chick Bowen, and per his answers to Q5. The candidate doesn't seem anywhere near careful enough to be safe with admin tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose. Many of the opposes above give me cause for concern, and neutral !votes 7 and 8 especially do so. I also have the usual concerns about a lack of content creation, and the overall professionalism of the nominee in communication. But, overall, it's what neutral !votes 7 and 8 refer to that cause me to oppose.--Slon02 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per Chick Bowen's rationale. I would hope Banaticus takes aboard these opposing statements as constructive criticism, and that they maintain and improve their editing skills. Re-nominate in a year, and I'm sure they will have changed their ways. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I'm a bit turned off by the copy/pasted nomination statement from the candidate's userpage, but I'll return when I have time to review his past contributions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of reinventing the wheel. I was actually getting somewhat tired of reposting an "about me" every year or two, so back at the beginning of the month I broke it into a subpage because I needed to post another about me on my online ambassador profile. The RFA asked me for "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER", so I just dropped my "about me" in -- it's still in squiggly brackets up there. Is that not just a great face? :p Seriously, it took quite a number of grimaces before I really got the "popping frazzled" expression that I was going for. It's just over a year later and it still makes me laugh, which was exactly the effect I was going for. If you look through my past comments on people's talk pages, you will likely notice that I like emoticons (when their use seems appropriate). I tend to be in a good mood and I try to share that mood and to subtly invite other people to join me in that mood by the judicious use of emoticons. But I digress, let me, ahem, put on my more serious face from now on for this RFA. I hope this sheds a little additional light on just who I am. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. User seems to be OK, but I don't like the attitude in the nomination statement and answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The nomination statement did not impress me but I don't consider it necessary to ridicule it by calling it baloney. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I just don't think that I can come down solidly either way on this candidacy. On the one hand, Banaticus has undoubtedly made some fantastic contributions here. Looking through your talk page archives over the past year, you generally come across as a nice guy and your intention to do the more gnomish tasks around the project with the mop is commendable. On the other hand, I find myself thinking along the lines of Chick Bowen above me in the oppose section. The general uneasiness about a perceived lack of caution is of concern and relevance. But, most importantly, you're a great editor and a fantastic wikignome. So, while I cannot support your candidacy at this time, I just can't bring myself to oppose either. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. The answer to my question six was pretty good, and was just about what I would have done. I also see good contributions in general, and a couple of quite complex templates that demonstrate their template skill, in particular {{is daylight savings on}}. However, I also see some warning signs, such as the mistaken parameters in the {{edit protected}} template used in the answers to my question,[2][3][4][5] the discussions which Chick Bowen mentions, and the recently created template {{About me}} which really should be in userspace rather than template space. These worry me enough to keep me from supporting. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that {{About me}} template which was created should have been marked for deletion the same day. I mistakenly created it in the wrong space on the 2nd of February, realized my mistake, created it in my userspace, and have linked to the one in my userspace since then. I should have marked the one in template space for deletion that same day. I've now done so. As for the editprotected template, I should have looked at its source. It's been a long time since I used that and I presumed it was a simple switch on the first implicit parameter, not an #ifeq comparing the answered parameter with "yes" (just an example of how convoluted templates can be at the current moment). I was wrong. Banaticus (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - We need more admins willing to work in "background" technical areas and some of our most valuable admins run bots and tools that most of us use every day. We need technical people to make up for the non-technical people like me. However, that non-technical side of me also makes it hard to understand exactly what it is that the nominee will do with the toolkit. If there's someone willing and able to explain the technical benefit of adminship in this instance. The nominee hasn't indicated a want to work in any of the areas where I think we could do with more admins. That's perfectly fine; but I suppose I just want to understand the nomination better if that's the case. Stalwart111 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral/leaning Oppose. I'm disturbed by this. If I understand it correctly, the candidate proposed a change that would have altered the way a template uses parameters, thus breaking potentially thousands of transclusions. Such a change absolutely must be exactly compatible with the existing version, and it's a rookie mistake to break that. Secondly, you shouldn't propose such a change without demonstrating that you have tested it, and that's another rookie mistake. So while I see someone who is clearly technically clever, I also think I see a cavalier attitude to proper software development practice - and people who approach it like that should not be able to make changes without review. The only thing that keeps me from the Oppose section is the "If I understand it correctly" clause, above - if anyone can verify/refute my understanding, do please let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. God, I would really hate to oppose Banaticus. He is obviously a great volunteer, someone with enthusiasm and a willingness to pitch in wherever he can. Kraxler's opposing points do not concern me in the slightest; 43% of his edits are to article space? That's a very large portion of content contributions, especially considering the good work he did at Cleopatra's article. As far as I'm concerned, it has no bearing on how he would perform as an administrator, and the somewhat sporadic editing patterns are offset by the fact that he has generally been active on a consistent basis for the past two years (albeit to varying degrees, but only in a few months out of this period has he been genuinely "inactive" by my personal definition of the term). The reason I am in neutral is because I have to agree with Chick Bowen and Boing! said Zebedee. This exchange and another previous proposal from roughly a year ago gives me pause and makes me wonder whether or not Banaticus would act unilaterally as an administrator, a concern that was not alleviated in his response to Chick's oppose above. Acting without discussing things beforehand can be very costly, especially with technical features such as templates which are transcluded onto thousands of pages throughout Wikipedia. I feel as though I would be more comfortable if he gave an explicit guarantee that he would open discussions at the Village Pump for technical features and gathered consensus from other users with experience in scripting before enacting any significant changes. Also, Wifione lists some instances in Question 5 where Banaticus should probably have exercised a bit more caution (specifically, re-adding this paragraph without also including a reference was a bit hasty, as that content did indeed violate BLP); however, we all make mistakes. Banaticus has adequately responded to those concerns, and I think he will make a point to be more meticulous in his work from here on out. With a few more months experience and a better demonstrated adherence to the principle of consensus, I can pretty much guarantee a support. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per Boing, Chick and Strat. You have some excellent technical skills that are needed and impressive, but you need to work on the cooperative skills. I understand holding firm on your ideas, but when they affect broad sections of the encyclopedia, you need to be quicker to accept consensus, and be willing to test more on the sidelines. Interdependence is something all admin need to understand, particularly in the technical areas of the encyclopedia. Give it a little time and work on your teamwork skills, and most of the neutrals and opposers will be in the support column next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. As others have said, you seem to be very intelligent and a good person; that said, I think you could learn a bit more about being a sysop (based off of your nomination statement). That being said, there's no reason you should not try to become an administrator in a few more months. Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kind of a "moral support". When I saw the percentage support/oppose, I initially figured this was a "snow" situation, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this is actually someone I could support in the future. A likable, well-meaning contributor to the project, who has something helpful to offer in an esoteric (to me) corner of the project. WMF: hire this person part-time. On the other hand, there are opposes and neutrals with which I really cannot disagree, so I cannot support now. As others have noted, Chick Bowen's oppose raises some concerns. On the other hand, it looks to me like the candidate readily accepted that consensus was against him, but we just don't know if administrative actions might set off some unanticipated consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. Absolutely no problems with the candidate's contributions or intentions, but some of the behaviors displayed in this RfA (e.g. the rather strange nomination statement, some unclear answers to Qs, attitude in responses to !voters) leave me unable to support at the present time. — sparklism hey! 08:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What didn't you like about my attitude? Have I been unpolite? Banaticus (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No impoliteness, no, but some of your responses (e.g this) give me an uneasy feeling. Maybe it's the just the old problem of thoughts not translating so well in text form, though. It's not a real show-stopper, hence why I am not opposing over it. — sparklism hey! 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral more or less in the vein of Tryptofish. Learning support largely because the the candidate is absolutely, 100% right about the "ball of yuck" that is our cite templates, in a way that affects some of the work I do, and LUA could make a practical difference to the usability of the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral. I am somewhat concerned by this edit (identified by Wifione) where a good faith contribution has been labelled as "vandalism". While his edits are generally good, there are occasional errors that make me reluctant to grant the tools for such a far-reaching purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. I don't see a benefit to piling on the "oppose" pile, and while they seem like a great person, I don't think they are admin. material at this time. Several possible suggestions: 1) If you want to impress people with your technical skills, referring to a particular skill-set as "nitty-gritty mumbo-jumbo", and "a gigantic snarled ball of yuck" might need a bit of copy-editing. 2) In a nomination, your particular time zone isn't really relevant. 3) Being in IRC and creating userboxes don't often equate to "support" !votes. 4) In question #3, I don't think that (edit conflict) is really what you want to address there; 2 entirely different things. I do appreciate your contributions however, and encourage you to continue. — Ched :  ?  18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Banaticus meant "conflicts" as in "disputes", especially with the question asking about conflicts over editing. Suraj T 11:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral, leaning to oppose, for the same reasons as Ched. While "a gigantic snarled ball of yuck" might be an appropriate description for some templates, I find some editors can be quite passionate about them, and if untangling them involves listing them at TfD (and deleting them as an admin), Banaticus might get some unpleasant blowback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Banaticus&oldid=1142815490"