Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BozMo: Difference between revisions

BozMo

Voice your opinion (10/5/4); Scheduled to end 11:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BozMo (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination by BozMo. I am not a saint, not the best ever editor either nor likely to change the world by being an Admin, but I am fairly levelheaded, understand WP policy (I think) and have been around for nearly three years trying to improve WP; I think without upsetting too many people but perhaps I am about to find out... I think being an admin would allow me to help with low-hanging fruit on AN/I and also occasionally sorting out some of the spam and vandalism where I have been a little more involved lately. BozMo talk 11:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: There are fairly simple sysop inventions back-logged at AN/I which I think I could help with: e.g. to help mopping up pieces of a sock-puppet farm at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar, rather than chasing admins on it. I think I could help with speedy deletion and other bits of the deletion process. I do not anticipate many other things but get drawn to need and am happy to learn.

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

A: I tend to work on articles more on talk pages than in doing main work on an article myself; I think about 70-80% of my edits are on talk pages, including drafting etc. Partly that's because as a mathmo my spelling isn't that great. There are a few other things which I feel are particular contributions but they are buried so deep in the edit history they may have been deleted and re-discovered since: the intro to the article on Statistics for example which is still close to what I suggested on the talk page several years ago.

But I am going to answer this a little unconventionally, taking "Wikipedia" in the wider project sense. Although in part it was done as part of my "real" job for a charity, I regard making the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (the CD not the article) as a pleasing contribution both to the WP project (since it has put WP articles in the hands of thousands of children who did not have it) and to society (not that I think it was perfect, but it was surprisingly hard work for what it was). Strangely this same project gives my biggest feeling of dis-satisfaction: it would have been better to get more ownership on wiki (only part of the process was done here). That will come with the Release versions but necessarily that process is slower (and more thorough).

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: I have been in edit conflicts. Generally I do not get very stressed but sometimes I must come over as aggressive since people act aggressively back. Probably the worst I've been in (as a protagonist rather than peacemaker) was [1] (where the other person got blocked for 3RR on another article before we'd finished) or more recently I provoked irritation here: [2]. Personally, I have also been irritated twice by disconnect between tech mailing lists and the online community and probably left some slightly ratty notes about that around. Most of the time though it is pretty aimiable; and I enjoy the community here.

Optional question from Amarkov (talk · contribs) lifted from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do WP:IAR and WP:SNOW mean to you?

A: Both are statements on the importance of common sense, and one is derived from the other. WP:IAR says if a decision looks wrong on broad principles then rather than slavishly applying the letter of the policy (when you've given reasonable credit to the people who thought the guideline through and those who voted it in, and who may just be as thoughtful as you) go with what looks obviously right and consider improving the policy. Snowball is similar: e.g there is no point keeping this RfA open and waste people's time reading it if enough people clearly think for whatever reason it shouldn't happen. Snowball is harder to call because on AfD's etc sometimes people like me change our minds when someone comes up with a good argument. --BozMo talk 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?

A:It depends. I would generally check that the article met the guidelines for inclusion in WP:BIO. If I saw a case like [3] which I noticed at the time I would smile and move on happy. If it was a little bit more of an edit, or habit I would politely point them at WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you. If it looked to me like they were including information which was based on their self-knowledge I would also mention WP:VER#Sources, and explain why self-knowledge and/or original research isn't appropriate here (people struggle with that) . If necessary WP:Peacock and WP:NPOV are worth having to hand, but only if appropriate. In general I would try to leave comment on the users talk page for whichever was less of a week or until I saw them editing anything else before correcting the article as needed (except for libel or copyright or speedy deletions). I try to avoid short remarks with lots of links to policy but just mention the key ones and explain principles. I do know the policy to back up generally though. --BozMo talk 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?

A: ::A: When any other solution existed to a problem! I am not hankering after the ability to semi protect pages, it is not a sharp instrument. Despite what Jimbo said on infrequented pages I would rather watch an article than semi-protect it. --BozMo talk 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:Where there's basically no good content but a possibly notable company? I do run into these. More often when the article is about a product or service though, with very little real content. They are difficult because many of them come under assume good faith: there may be genuine people in a company who don't understand what we are or what we do and just see us as advertising space. But with others assume good faith makes you feel like Matilda's aunt (the effort to believe Matilda very nearly killed her), they are blatant plugs. Generally my starting point is the edit history to look at the editors and try to deal with WP:COI first (there are often conflicted parties, and going for them first reduces any heat if they want to revert your changes). When I have asked any such what relationship they have and explained any conflict, I tend to put {{prod}} to see whether there are people who we can get involved in improving the article. If people turn up to help, great. If I get a stroppy revert I send to AfD. By the way I have just been through nominating to tidy up Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESLUSA, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teach_English_Abroad, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teaching_English_in_Taiwan and {{prod}}ing some related ones Eslcafe, Dave's ESL Cafe. You don't need to be a sysop for that unless it gets nasty. --BozMo talk 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

I can think of several good reasons people may not wish me to be a sysop, and respect such view points. One is the conflict of interest declaration on my user page. Another is whether in generating the CD selection I was too much of an outsider. A third is a tendency to walk away from conflict and hand over to someone else.

• See BozMo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Discussion For enlightenment, on the edit count thing see [4] which shows a pattern on a much higher level of edits from early 2006. --BozMo talk 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Look like a very good person to me and that is my basic criteria of supporting people. Furthermore, I do not get what is wrong if he will not be a very active admin? He can still work as admin whenever he will have extra time available. Less active admin will still be more useful for wikipedia than NO admin. --- ALM 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Provisional support, to prevent snowball closure of this until I have an answer to my question. I don't understand why an admin should be opposed for inactivity. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Question answered, changed to full support, still trying to figure out why being active is relevant to being a good admin. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strongest support -- he beat me to nominating -- I've worked extensively with BozMo on spam investigations with WikiProject Spam and he's impressed me greatly. I was going to nominated him later this week when I had time. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment -- re: edit count concerns, I think there's some confusion; perhaps one of the edit count tools is not working right. Here's what Interiot's tool shows:

   • Mainspace: 896; Talk: 1746; User talk: 580; User: 812; Wikipedia talk: 259; Wikipedia: 235; Other spaces:68
   • Total edit count to date: 4596; last 10 weeks: 838

   Furthermore, some of his spam investigation edits involve a fair amount of time per edit; my impression from working with him is that he's spending at least an hour/day and often much more on Wikipedia this month. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Support I believe he is dedicated to the encyclopedia, and simply because he was no able to rack up tons of edits recently should not be a bar to adminship as long as he is otherwise qualified.-- danntm ^T _C 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I see no reason not to support. --Aminz 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Good anti-spam work, length of time with the project shows ample commitment. You don't need to live on Wikipedia 24/7 to be a good admin. Oldelpaso 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support -- Being here a long time but not having been particularly active in the beginning is not a bad thing. Those who think that 200-300 edits a month is not enough should take a step back and think about how much that really is (especially when it involves a lot of talk edits, which take much more time and thought than typos, categorizations, and vandal reversions) -- Renesis (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support OK, so he comes and goes; many of us have a life in the real world outside wikipedia, and so long as his edits are good and sensible, and broadly spread over mainspace and namespace, which they are, I don't think that occasional periods of lack of activity are significant. His total count is fine.--Anthony.bradbury 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Weak support Wikispace edits are a little low for my taste but BozMo is a very thoughtful editor which I believe is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. Pascal.Tesson 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
10. SupportBozMo's pioneering work with the CD release helped blaze a trail we are now following with WP:1.0 work. Putting the CD together involved an enormous amount of work, and it has put Wikipedia in many school classrooms and orphanages around the world. In my dealings with BozMo, he has always been friendly, helpful and supportive, with a good sense of humour and realism. He'll be a real asset to the admin team. Walkerma 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - my path frequently crosses with this editor and I believe the admin tools will enhance his already fine contributions. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - The last "contribution" I can find you made to the encyclopaedia (the thing we are building here) was on the 8th of January :-\[5] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think something odd's going on with the edit histories and edit count tools today; BozMo has made over 200 edits from 8 January through today.[6] [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

   Oppose - I'm not one for editcountitis, but the level of commitment to this project seems very low, given edit count vs length of time here. Assuming that many of those edits have been on work-related projects, as you indicate, I can't imagine you'll be an active admin... and we've got enough inactive ones already. Sorry. --Dweller 12:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (!vote changed to neutral Dweller 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

2. Oppose, not really any clear cut demonstration of policy understanding, very few Wikispace edits, not quite active enough. The Rambling Man 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose for now You seem like a strong determined user, all you need is more experience. Involve yourself more in different projects and work harder on editing, and you'll find your mop eventually. Ganfon 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose due to low wikispace edits and what looks to be a lack of commitment.--Wizardman 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Total edit count to date: 4596; last 10 weeks: 838 (see A. B. post above for details) . Now I think all of above opposing only on the base of edit count should rethink? --- ALM 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   That would be about 84 edits a week, or 12 a day. That's not terrible but he's donna have to do more to be a good admin. Plus he's only got 200-odd Wikispace edits, not enough, that's been my stance on every RfA.--Wizardman 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   So he will not be an extremely useful admin but still be a useful admin with lesser edits? We do not have limit on number of admin here you can select him and another one with more edits. No? For example if I can hire free persons and a person say he will work one hour only instead of eight hours (and the person is good). Then tell me for my company it will be better to hire him or not to hire him? I will get one hour value work because he is a good person. --- ALM 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Wizardman, I agree about the importance of Wikispace edits in RfAs. In BozMo's case, you may also want to include Wikipedia Talk space since that's where most WikiProject Spam activity occurs (compare WP:WPSPAM vs. WT:WPSPAM -- I have no idea why it's that way.) Month to date, he's one of top 3 editors on WikiProject Spam in January with 31 edits[8] plus many more edits following up on spam identified there.

   For every WT:WPSPAM edit, there are several associated article space edits involving clean-up + warnings to make. Also, some of these complex spam investigations require considerable time per edit, just researching the associated domains. (Someone catches an anon IP spamming one domain, then a 2 hour-long investigation shows another 5 to 10 socks adding links to the same domain + 10 others owned by the same person). I figure BozMo's been spending at least an hour a day on process-oriented tasks over the last 2 to 3 months. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose for Now per Ganfon. --tennisman sign here! 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per low edit count. Yuser31415 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards oppose - needs more edits in the mainspace and wikispace. Activity is rather low for an admin candidate. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral leaning towards support - more activity is required in admin and policy areas. Contributions to XfD discussions that quote policies and guidelines would also be of service in identifying knowledge of appropriate policies in the circumstances. (aeropagitica) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per aeropagitica. I am a little uncomfortable with your activity. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Defenders make a good case, but there's only been a few months of real activity recently and I still have my concerns. Happy to adjust !vote to neutral in deference to well-reasoned arguments, but not enought to get a Support. --Dweller 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)