The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Banes

final (63/5/3) ending 15:24 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Banes ( talk · contribs) – Banes has been contributing to Wikipedia since July 2005, and since then, he has amassed well over 2000 edits that are nicely distributed between different namespaces. I've had the pleasure of working as a fellow admin coach with Banes in the Esperanza program, and despite the constant interaction, I still haven't managed to find anything wrong with him. :) Banes is an exceptionally courteous, humorous, and kind Wikipedian, as well as a proficient vandal fighter and capable user of edit summaries. In addition, he has a good grip on policies and guidelines. Banes politely declined his first nomination because he wished to gain more experience, but it's now time to hand him the mop. Sango 123 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored, Sango123. I humbly and gratefully accept this nomination. Ban e z 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Strong, Strong, Strong Support. Wooot! I'm so excited to be voting for Banes. He definately deserves the mop. Terrific, wonderful user. (and I'm first!!!!!!) -- Violin G irl ^♪ 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support as nominator. Sango 123 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support - I cannot think of a good reason not to. Latinus 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support double whipped with cherries. Superb candidate. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Yes please!!! this is already overdue! – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support. <cliche>Already thought he was one</cliche> Lord ViD 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Yes. — FireFox • T • 17:17, 25 January 2006
9. Support, apparently. JIP | Talk 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support He will do fine-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support Trustworthy editor, whom I am certain will take constructive criticism to heart, and warn newbies better in future. Xoloz 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Extreme "He's so fantastic, don't you think?" support. Opposition? What opposition? <Glares at lunitics in the oppose pile> -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support -- NaconKantari e| t|| c| m 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support could be trusted with admin status, appropriate answers to questions. Familiarity with warning templates will improve with more experience _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support — Moe ε 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support- seems a good editor Astrotrain 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support The warning problem is a concern that I think he can deal with. Good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. I agree with Anonymous editor. Banes needs to learn how to deal with vandalism using the warning templates. But I know from interaction with Banes in Esperanza that he is a quick learner and he can be trusted not to block someone for the wrong reasons. -- Tantalum T e lluride 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support Kindness and decency should always be rewarded and there are few here that are more kind or decent. Banes states that he would use (test4) and then give a "final warning" when notifying vandals and that is because he is so decent. There is zero chance in my opinion that Banes will abuse his admin tools.-- MONGO 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support - a very good user -- Francs 2000 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support TigerShark 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support-Know him and trust him to not abuse extra tools.-- Dakota ~ ε 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. King of All the Franks 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Pete.Hurd 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support, declining his first nomination because he wanted more experience suggests a sufficient level of maturity, and his edits seem fine. But please look into using the templates more if you're gonna go big on the vandal fighting. Proto  t  c 11:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support Good edit history and will be a good admin. Gator (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Definite Support. A very good user. His quick review of policy will fix all the concerns below, but he has already shown a strong ability to work well with active and new users, and will be a great admin. NoSeptember ^talk 14:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Yeh I thought about this one a lot after all my ramblings below. On reflection I have decided that this admins many strengths far out-way the problems described in my original oppose vote (I still think they are problem, but I trust others above who say this will be fixed). Ultimately though I thought will I be pleased if this user fails this RfA and doesn't becomes an admin?, and the answer was no. Following on from that, will this user do any damage as an admin?- and as far as I can tell the answer to that is no. Can this user do some good as an admin? Certainly! -- Petros471 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support my coach, of course support (surprised he isn't a sysop yet) three cheers from the House of Gryffindor 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Strong Support, I think Banes would make a great administrator. - Ø tVaughn05 ^talk _contribs 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. "I'm-late-because-I-was-doing- Calculus-homework" Support. I'm convinced he has enough experience to be an admin, and the few rough edges can be always be fixed by asking first and shooting later, which is what I've always seen him do. No reservations from here. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. Rob e rt 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support great candidate for admin. -- rogerd 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 恭喜发财 everyone! 11:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Strong support. Knowing the warning templates is a lot less important to me than removing the rubbish. James James 11:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support-- Bling-chav 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support now that he has received far too much advice from me and others about using the test templates, and is taking that advice seriously. Keep up on policy, it's good to Ignore All Rules but admins need to follow rules to avoid the appearance of bad behavior. -- DDerby- (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support dedicated and a hard worker — This user has left wikipedia 23:24 2006-01-27
43. Thought he was one Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Suppose-- Ugur Basak 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. He has a very good grasp of adminship responsibilities. -- Nataly a 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) A well rounded Wikipedian, of the kind that makes me proud to be on the same team. reply
48. Support. A good editor. Mushroom 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support. Gladly. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support: -- Bhadani 15:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support Niceness trumps everything else -- that's the foundation that you need to build a Wikipedian on, and Banes has it in spades. Karm a fist 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support, especially in light of Petros471's change of heart. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support sure there are areas for improvement, but certainly has enough experience -- pgk^{( talk)} 09:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support I've decided to support in light of my conversations with him. I think he'll continue to improve, with regards to warning vandals. Also his demeanor through out this has been what I think is the proper temperament for an admin. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support excellent article editor, would probably make a judicious admin with a good sense of the needs of the content side of WP, rather than just the disciplinary side. Chick Bowen 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support; great user. smurrayinch ester^{( User), ( Talk)} 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support: His name is out and leaves no bad aftertaste. Fthepostingquota 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Mihai - ^talk 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. weak support. Hopefully you'll find something more interesting to do with your time than block and rollback vandals. Avriette 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Strong Support a dedicated and helpful user, he'll make an excellent admin. — Imp i 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support. Elf-friend 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support. Fine guy. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose, sorry. Reverts vandals, but doesn't warn them on their talk pages, and the answer to question 4 seems to indicate that he doesn't really know which warning templates he should use (test4 is already the final warning). Intends to delete nonsense/vanity articles but admittedly doesn't know when he should delete an article like that (per answer to question 6). I'd have no qualms with supporting in the future, since he's a good user, but he just doesn't seem like he'd be a good admin right now. - Bobet 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose per Bobet. Sorry, Banes, you're a good editor, but I agree that you need some more experience, particularly with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Among other things, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies and procedures. Taking a look at WP:AN and WP:ANI will show you some of the things admins do and talk about. I'm sure if you do these things, you'll get a resounding level of support in the future. -- D e ath phoenix 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I admit, I do not often warn vandals. But I would still use "test4" after the vandal had vandalized two or three times. And then give them another "final warning". But yes, I am not very familiar with the warning templates as (see above) I dont use them often. However, if I had the blocking ability I would obviously use them. As for Q.6. I said I wouldnt be sure what to do about an article about "unremarkable people or groups". If "groups" means a charity/political/education organization or the like, I would not be sure what to do. If it is clearly a high school student vanity article (they are easy to recognize) with no real google hits then I'd speedy. Thanks for bringing it up though. Ban e z 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Weak oppose Good and friendly user, but the issues raised above are worrisome. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 16:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) I've changed my vote to support. See above. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Reluctant Oppose per the answer to question six, below, and somewhat for above as well. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm changing this to STRONG OPPOSE now. His original answer to (at the very least) question number six below was "I honestly dont know about CSDA7...Sorry. I'd probably refer to google." This user changed his answer after discussion began, without striking his comments. I'm sorry, but this is unnaceptable on many levels. His original unmodified anwers to the optional questions can be found here, for those interested (which, I'd hope would be everyone). -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Oppose. Sorry, but I must oppose as well. (Changing vote to support, see above) Main reason being relative lack of warning vandals and related issues (e.g. responses to question 4 below and Deathphoenix above, couldn't find any posts to WP:AIAV or WP:VIP). You don't really fail any of my RfA criteria (although they are under development and could be expanded); I think generally you are a great editor, and wouldn't really do any damage as an admin- but could still do with that little bit more experience before becoming an admin. I am more than happy to go into more detail about this oppose vote before or after this RfA is over, just alert me on my talk page for fastest response. -- Petros471 20:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     That's silly (note, not you're silly but more that comment made no sense) - he meets all of your criteria, he meets all of the general criteria, you trust him with the powers - what on earth do you want him to wait for? If I didn't assume good faith on this one, I would call you a sheep. -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Sorry for any confusion, I probably need to re-name my 'criteria' to something else, as they are not 'set in stone' rules that I follow but more guidance. Especially as they are new and not fully developed (as per comment above). The reason for my oppose is because of Banes poor (in my opinion) understanding of the use and importance of vandal warnings. In question 4 below, Banes says on first case of vandalism that he'd use test3. I disagree that this should be the case. bv is not for using after a final warning (test4), but as a first warning for blatant vandals (definition of blatant free for discussion). Whilst your comment about me trusting him is fair, and I am actually tempted to change my vote to neutral because of it, I think this is an area that can be fixed before becoming an admin. Oh and also not posting anything on WP:AIAV is not insignificant, as I would assume that any time a non-admin posts their, they would have issued a block if they were an admin. Therefore posting there shows that admin powers would be used.

   As I point out in my criteria page, I try and form my opinion before reading other people's. In this case I did just that- I came to the above conclusion before reading the above comments, read them, and saw that mine just happened to be pretty similar to Bobet's. Besides if I was being a sheep (I know you weren't really accusing me of that, I'm only trying to make things clear) I'd have voted with the larger flock of supports ;-) Hope that means my vote makes more sense, I will attempt to clarify further if needed. Petros471 20:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose, lack of experience with policy and process. Has hardly any Wikispace edits that aren't AFD/RFA votes. R adiant _>|< 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose per lack of basic Wikiknowledge as shown by answers to the questions, including unfamiliarity with CSD and test4 vs bv. Potential admins should already know about such things, not learn them during their nomination. Turnstep 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Perfectly acceptable answer to my question regarding users conduct from the long long ago. No opinion Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. won't oppose but cannot support. i think the answer to Q4 is in poor judgement, as i discuss here. i realize it is has become common practice to start with block warnings. that doesn't make it wise. Derex 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. neutral. Would like to support, but som worrying points have been raised. Grutness... wha? 09:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• See information about Banes's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

1. Neutral comment reading the votes opposed and then comparing the discussion here to the discussion at the roll back proposal poll makes my head spin. Here we have a user who fights vandals, and we won't grant admin powers to do that more easily. Over at rollback poll, the argument is that anyone who can be trusted to fight vandals will have no problem becoming an admin, and they should do so because there is a shortage. Here the problem is that the user doesn't template vandals... I'm convinced that a fair proportion of vandals are only encouraged by warn templates, it seems a trifling matter to vote no on. I havn't read enough of this users history to vote "yes" in good conscience, but so far all the "no" votes make it pretty clear that admin status has become a big deal, and that to many users it is to be granted only when there is really no excuse at all not to. Pete.Hurd 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (move from neutral to here, voted support Pete.Hurd 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
2. Support. Fine guy. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

A. Mostly I anticipate rollback and blocking of vandals. All too often have I had to revert the same vandal over and over again, it would be useful having the block option. I also intend to speedy nonsense/vanity articles and helping to clear out the backlog. I may also work in AFD, CSD, etc.

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

A. The article, Black Consciousness Movement is one I am pleased of, although much of the article was written by others and it requires cleanup. It is a lengthly and thorough article, I am impressed with it's growth. Dujail is another, I believe it is a good article as it tells the story of the town quite well, and is newsworthy. I am also rather proud of Soweto riots, as it is an important part of my country's history, now documented on wikipedia. Although I havent edited it in awhile and it too is rather untidy at the moment.

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

A. No, no conflicts. I tend to avoid editing controversial subjects. Other users have caused me stress in the past, however. But again, I have not edit-warred with any non-vandals. When I get stressed I find the best thing to do is just take some time off editing. A wikibreak always does the trick, and I expect it to work in the future. Also changing one's area of editing for awhile, branching out, works quite well. Just getting back to normal article creation is very relaxing.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- D e ath phoenix 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

4. When would you use {{ test3}}/{{ test4}}, and when would you use {{ bv}}?

A. Original answer: After one vandalism I'd use "test3". After another I'd use "test4", and after one more I'd use "bv". After that I'd block. Changed answer: I would use test3 for the first time on a malicious vandal, who has been warned before. In the case of newbie testing, I'd use it as their second or third warning. Test4 I'd normally use after test3. BV would be used on a serious vandal, who has a history. And vandalizes in a most malicious/hateful way.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. I would warn them that they are misbehaving, as I frown on that. I'd complain. If they did it all the time, I'd ask another admin about it.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. Original answer: I honestly dont know about CSDA7...Sorry. I'd probably refer to google. Changed answer: In the cases of an organization (charitable, medical, educational, political, etc.) I would speedy if they made no assertions of their notability (Per CDS7). Band and personal vanity would also be speedied. If there was a dispute over the notability of the subject, then I'd tend to rather go to AFD then speedy. Again, if there was any serious question of notability, I'd give the article the benefit of the doubt and see what the community thinks.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. I would apply it to the best of my ability. If I had strong feelings about the article, I'd probably not be editing it. I would always try to stay within policy.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. Too much frivilous bickering over things that honestly do not matter, such as you see chronicled at WP:LAME. I also believe that NPA violations and vandals are given too much leniency. Much like RickK's last message. But to be honest, these dont bother me day in day out.

9. In light of your answer to question 8, what are your current thoughts on the conflict over Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency? What did you do right there? What did you do wrong? Could you define "vandal" in light of question 3, above? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

A. In light of question 8. much of that VfD was in my opinion frivilous bickering which could have been avoided. The whole conflict was swelled by pile-on "keep" and "delete" voters, many of whom didnt even know what they were voting on. My view is that that whole Wfd debacle was a very sad event for wikipedia. As to my role in it all, I can hardly remember as it was in my first month here. My role was very limited, and as far as what I did right, I think I tried unsuccessfully to help cool things down on occasion. For what I did wrong, I dont believe I did anything major wrong, but with hindsight, simply participating looks like a mistake. I dont define someone I disagree with a vandal, I dont even classify pov warriors as vandals. When I say "vandal" above, I mean the kind of vandal which hangs out at George W. Bush, the obvious vandal. I'm sure we've all done multiple reverts of this sort. I hope this helps, I'd be happy to answer any more queries you may have.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.