Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Banno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Banno[edit]

Final (25/3/1) ending 02:27 Thursday, January 12, 2006 (UTC)

Banno (talk · contribs) – Banno's chief interest is WikiProject Philosophy. He came to Wikipedia in September 2003 and has well over 3600 edits (see below). I first met Banno on Scientific method where he singlehandedly turned around the article, historically a contentious one, to achieve stability. Banno's approval on a subject constitutes a major endorsement for the articles which he chooses to scrutinize. Banno is a diplomatic, considerate exemplar for the encyclopedia. Please join me in supporting an expert contributor to Wikipedia for adminship. --Ancheta Wis 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am grateful to Ancheta for the nomination, which I am happy to accept. Banno 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --Ancheta Wis 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - another good hand with the mop always helps. BD2412 T 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good work on scientific method. Neutralitytalk 06:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support good enough edit history for something that's not supposed to be a big deal.Gator (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good editor. --Kefalonia 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Why not? -- Phædriel 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support as per the above commenters. As for the opposition, I respect the position of User:SlimVirgin, but I feel that something has gone wrong if a general feeling of "unease" is sufficient to oppose someone's adminship. It's supposed to be no big deal. If that has changed, we should try to find out why, and then change it back. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - When I first joined the Philosophy Project, I thought Banno was already an admin! He certainly acted like one, and has been the spiritual leader of the Philosophy Project for several months. What I like most about his style is that he lets others edit without leaping into battle against them. He lets their edits ride awhile, to get a feel for how well they work. And then he brings up his points of contention, giving you a chance to discuss and/or revise them. Which reminds me, I've got to edit the Philosophy Project's Policies per Banno's recent comments. Thanks for the feedback, Banno! Go for it! 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. King of All the Franks 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Maybe Banno can figure out the existential nature of the mop. Thus spoke Youngamerican 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
  13. Support. Looks good to me. But what do I know. --Jay (Reply) 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, he may not be a wiki-holic or whatever, but he does nothing but good here. Sam Spade 05:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. He's demonstrated leadership and common sense. --Nate Ladd 07:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support See no reason to not trust you as an admin.--MONGO 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support "It might be fun" is, IMHO, the perfect answer to "Why do you want to become an admin?" Smmurphy(Talk) 08:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support very good and dedicated editor. Yodo 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    discounted for meat puppetry (Wikipedia:Sock puppet). Sciurinæ 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strongest Support I mostly interacted with Banno durring the dotsix affair, and I think he ought to become an admin on the basis of that alone. He dealt extensively with a user that was clearly a troll and did so with an incredibly level head. Once it became clear that banning was the only solution, he put in a tremendous amount of time getting it through RfC and RfAr. I am absolutely confident that he will not abuse his powers. Furthermore, his dealings with philosophy related articles is to be commended. Philosophy articles are very hard to write well and everyone thinks they know what should be on them (even though few actually do), Banno has done a suburb job with those I have seen. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Specializes in a subject that gave me so much hell (perhaps in a Swedenborg kind of way) last quarter and he does it well. So, of course. --Chris S. 09:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support I have never met or observed Banno first hand, but he seems quite capable. Eluchil 11:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, been here long enough and made good contributions. No reason to expect that to change. - Bobet 22:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Candidate has agreed to try expanding the topical range of his edits. I hope to encounter him more often. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:24, Jan. 10, 2006
  25. Easy Support. NoSeptember talk 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I suggest RfA reform! From now on, each admin voting oppose must explain why! :) After that, we can talk about minimum number of votes necessary to pass a candidate. :) (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship if you don't get it.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's partly because he has only 1500 edits to articles over a period of 28 months, which doesn't suggest a high level of participation; partly because I've had a couple of experiences of him that made me uneasy; partly because of edits like this: "Humans are incline [sic] to attempts to learn about both their existence and that of the world in which they find themselves. This has led to various cultural phenomena, including religion, philosophy and science," [1] an edit I found odd for someone who I believe says he has studied philosophy, and this [2] which makes no sense at all (though I know what he's trying to say), but I haven't looked closely through all his edits, so perhaps I've found some unrepresentative ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, he's been somewhat more active in the last 7 months. [3] As for the sentences, Banno, are you a native speaker of English? --Interiot 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, my native language is Australian... ;-) Banno 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Its his judgement on the articles that is so impressive. He knows where to draw the line and lets others write, but adds guidance vis a vis another's effort. For example, take the paragraph before the cited one. And the citation two proves the point; he was exactly right. Peace and thanks to SV for responding with her (dis)content. --Ancheta Wis 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    In the first example you gave, the situation was more complex than you've understood, and in the second example, I don't know what you mean by "he was exactly right." As I wrote above, I know what he was trying to say, but I wouldn't look at that edit and think that a philosopher had written it, though I may have misunderstood where his expertise lies. Can you be more precise about his being an expert contributor, as you wrote above? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Banno has elsewhere suggested [4] that the reason I am opposing is because of an exchange I had with him, [5] [6] where he appeared to defend one of User:FuelWagon's attacks on me, a user who was engaged in a long campaign of harassment against me, for which he was subsequently banned for six months by the arbitration committee. Actually, I hadn't connected the name and had completely forgotten about that exchange, but it's possibly in part where my sense of unease is coming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pleased to hear that there is no connection. Banno 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, there wasn't, but it hasn't helped. Could you say why you want to become an admin? The spread of your edits over 28 months doesn't suggest a high level of participation, and in an exchange with Cryptoderk, where you complained because you got caught in an IP block he had made because of vandalism, [7] [8] you told him he was being "overzealous," called his admin actions "Crypto's "War on Vandalism," [9] and seemed to suggest that fighting vandalism wasn't important to you. [10] Also, could you say whether you have ever edited with another account? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I will answer the questions below, in the appropriate section. But perhaps it is worth pointing out that my comment to Ancheta was made before I read your reasons for objecting, which you posted somewhat belatedly. I was simply attempting to guess what the nature of your objection was. Banno 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Per SlimVirgin --Irishpunktom\talk 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose Per SlimVirgin. She's a very good judge on these matters and I respect her reservations. 172 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Although the 3701 edits look good at first glance, only 630 distinct pages have been edited, making that a 5.87 edits/page. More than two years with just 630 distinct pages doesn't suggest too much participation. However, I do like the level of project participation. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm troubled by this being posited as a negative at all - we have plenty of generalists, but we also need admins who are specialists in various fields to uncover sneaky vandalism to those pages. BD2412 T 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. Specialist admins are always a good thing. Youngamerican 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I find the phrase "only 630 distinct pages" comical. As though this were a small amount. The vast majority of edits on the wikipedia are unsourced claims of dubious reliability made by non-experts. In fact, the great majority of wiki articles I've seen not only don't have a References section, they do not cite even one source. If we all really enforced the principle that wiki content should be sourced, then only a tiny number of editors would be able to contribute knowledgeably to 630 distinct topics. (And I would not be among them.) Banno would be, comparatively speaking, a Renaissance man. --Nate Ladd 07:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I doubt he's "contributed knowledgeably" to 630 distinct topics (by which I simply mean that certain articles have skewed his total number up, not that he's not knowledgeable :-) ). I don't really see a reason why you should have to contribute more than 100 times to an article that is not a current event, and even then, it's a stretch. Whenever I RC patrol, I have to deal with the page being cluttered up by people who don't use the preview button, so that's why I'm considering it a negative. However, I think everyone should calm down and realize that it's not as if I'm opposing him, I just don't feel very supportive. This user seems like a great editor, but I'm not sure if he has a complete knowledge of community etiquette and standards based on his high edits/page. That's all I'm saying. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, for the same reasons as JHMM13. I've examined the statistics of recent RFAs. I've found that, for 29 of the last 30 promoted administrators, the minimum distinct pages edited is 1112 and the maximum edits per page is 2.94 (most being under 2.00). I say "is" rather than "was" because these are current statistics, which may or may not have significantly changed since their respective RFAs. While I admit that I have not yet examined the content of the candidate's edits, these figures suggest a tendency toward article ownership. If true, this could pose a problem that might only escalate if Banno is promoted. I hold no ill will toward Banno (unsurprisingly, as I've never seen his name before — another reason why I can't justify supporting or opposing him quite yet), so I hope to find time to look more closely at his edits and develop a more thorough position on the matter. Regardless of the outcome of his nomination, and regardless of whether I change my vote to support or oppose, I would encourage Banno to be more adventurous in his contributions, copy-edit some articles he didn't know existed, whack a few vandals here and there. Perhaps as a guideline, designate one day a week to editing only outside his area of expertise (and me, I say this wishing I had an area of expertise). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:42, Jan. 6, 2006
    Given that at present I am often unable to find sufficient time to edit those pages in which I am interested, you will have to forgive me if I fail to find time to edit those pages in which I am not. But I think you make a valid point, and will try. Banno 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that an average #edits/page of 5.89 is a little higher than normal. My original tool is down, but here's a quick dump of it from a private server: Scientific method (185 edits), Truth (138 edits), Philosophy (111 edits), Epistemology (107 edits), Talk:Truth (174 edits), Talk:Philosophy (123 edits), Talk:Scientific method (110 edits). I haven't looked at them all closely, though the correspondingly high number of edits to Talk: space might point more towards lower use of the preview button rather than article owning? --Interiot 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Or just see the report itself instead. --Interiot 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 72% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Statistics for: Banno
Total edits: 3687
Image uploads: 10 (3 cur, 7 old)
Distinct pages edited: 628
Edits/page (avg): 5.87
First edit: 2003-09-14 12:00:32

Questions for the candidate
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. I regularly scan and revert vandalism through my watchlist, a task that would apparently be easier with sysop privileges. I also anticipate spending more time in Articles for deletion and working on the categories relating to philosophy. I anticipate cleaning up Wikipedia:wikiproject Philosophy pages, especially those guideline pages which have apparently been orphaned.
I am also interested in taking a greater role in the mediation process for conflict resolution. Banno 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am most pleased with those edits that have ended long-standing edit conflicts, usually by re-structuring an article. For example, in early 2004 I moved philosophically contentious debate to its own section in Scientific method#Philosophical issues, providing the article with a structure that permitted it to grow into its present state. Other examples of articles I have helped restructure include Philosophy of science, epistemology, and, to show that I do sometimes work outside of philosophy, Human.
I am also pleased with the Wikipedia:wikiproject Philosophy, especially the collaboration of the month, the invitation to join, the task list (which I update regularly) and the Sophia award. Banno 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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. I was heavily involved in the user:dotsix business; it was I who commenced the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix that resulted in his being banned. A read of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix and related material will give an idea of how I deal with real conflict.
Frankly, I enjoy dealing with contentious issues - there are plenty of those in philosophy - and I will continue to involve myself directly in such pages. I undertake to use sysop powers only in accord with the guidelines, and anticipate using them essentially at the request of other users. Banno 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Questions from Slim Virgin
  • Could you say why you want to become an admin?
It is not a great desire of mine - it was only Ancheta's suggestion that made me consider it; and as Jimmy Wales says, "this should be no big deal". Nor can I be sure of what use the Sysop rights will be, until I am granted them. Becoming an administrator just seems the next reasonable step in maintaining my interest in the Wiki. In other words, because it might be fun. Should I have some higher ideals in mind? Does the Wiki already have sufficient administrators, so that my help is not needed? ;-) Banno 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. The "no big deal" philosophy is increasingly not one that is held by everyone, which is why I'm asking these questions. I was concerned about you implying in your exchange with Cryptoderk that fighting vandalism wasn't important, and that made me wonder why you wanted to become an admin. Your contribs show no interest in helping out with any of the admins' chores, and I've never see you post on AN/I or take interest in policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this comment; I have made a few requests of admins, which can be viewed in the Wikipedia namespace [11], but I don't see why that is important. I have on occasion entered into discussion of policy [12], [13] and in Meta [14]. But in the main I have been concerned with administering the Philosophy project, and I think my contribution there is substantial. Surly my involvement in the DotSix guff indicates a willingness to be involved? But you must vote as you see fit. Banno 08:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The spread of your edits over 28 months doesn't suggest a high level of participation
My wife disagrees vehemently. Banno 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you ever edited with another account?
No. Banno 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conflict with Cryptoderk
I'm not at all sure what it is you are asking. Crypto blocked a dynamic IP, for vandalism committed by another user who happened to use my service provider, and as a reuslt I was blocked from editing twice. Check out more of the discussion at [15], under the heading Blocking. Subsequently I contacted my SP and had the problem fixed. Blocking dynamic IPs is an acknowledged problem - I used this experience in the DotSix case[16]. True, I might have been more diplomatic to Crypto, but I still think that Admins should avoid blocking dynamic IPs, and that there are better ways of dealing with vandalism. So, what was it you wanted to ask? Banno 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Answered above. Also, you've been introduced by your nominator as an "expert contributor." Can you say what is meant by that, and where exactly your expertise lies?
My apologies for asking so many questions, and thank you very much for your answers so far. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I want to take great care here. One of the things that appeals to me about the Wiki is that it does not assume merit based on authority; instead, one's contributions are judged as they stand. Ancheta describes me as an "expert contributor", and I assume that description is made on the basis of my contributions. Perhaps the question would be better addressed to Ancheta?
Forgive me if that sounds obtuse. I do have university qualifications and teaching experience in philosophy and other areas, but feel strongly that my candidacy should be judged on the merit of my contributions. Banno
SV, Ancheta Wis here; it appears that this is the appropriate spot to answer the question posed separately to me. Just look at the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy; the subject is one of the category:Top 10 in the encyclopedia, with thousands of years of development. It is analogous to the inner support columns, in a 100-story building. The people who ride the elevators in that building could generally care less about the stress-bearing weight of the columns. The monumental structures of our civilization are not just the huge buildings we walk about, but also the definitions of truth, for example. Banno is one of the contributors who knows, intimately, about the figurative stress-bearing weight of the columns of Philosophy. Historically, Philosophy led to Science; if I may get on my soapbox, that is why we enjoy a competitive advantage. Now I quote from the expert article: "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of knowledge, technique, or skill whose judgment is accorded authority and status by the public or their peers". Gee, I know someone like that. Just click around in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy and its edit history. The relationship of Banno to that project is exactly what teed-off the DotSix vandal, who envied the obvious respect that others accorded Banno. Now to answer the worry about 637 articles edited; that is probably on the order of the number of articles in the Philosophy project. But then we get back to the load-bearing weight of those articles. 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
SV has kindly provided an example of Banno's ability to cut short a recursive regress.--Ancheta Wis 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Process is important, but not so important as product.
The purpose of this Wiki is to produce an encyclopedia; this is the core goal. Process is important only in so far as it supports the core goal of producing an encyclopedia. And that is why "Ignore All Rules" is also important.
I think your page is an important contribution to the Wikipedia meta discussion, as an antidote to those who would use IAR to further their own POV. But for my money, what is really important in the Wikipedia is dialogue. It is the interplay of the various editors that I find most interesting. Ultimately, the product is nothing less than the consensus produced by this interplay. Excessive reliance on process will hinder this interplay, as will excessive denial of process. The role of the admin, as of the astute editor, is to maximise this consensus by seeking balance [17]. Banno 23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


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.