Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

When three admins in good standing tell you it's the right thing to do, you don't say "no". :) I accept. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to mostly be involved in helpful little tasks such as dealing with vandalism and protecting/unprotecting articles, providing assistance with page moves, and assisting other administrators in any reasonable requests that they make of me. I would assist with restoring pages deleted by PROD upon request, if the requestor intends to fix whatever was originally wrong with the article or intends to merge the article into another appropriate page, as numerous admins have done the same for me in the past. I may get into working on closing AFDs (though I have a hard time imagining myself ever hitting the "delete" button) and the DRV process, but I am still considering these things at this time.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Almost seven months ago, when the selection bot results on choosing articles for WP 0.7 were posted, I saw just how bad a state the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject was in. I began to organize the mostly inactive project, adding the project banner to appropriate pages, merging some pages to lists, refining categories, adding whatever reliable sources I could find, and generally trying to improve the articles under the project's umbrella. I also began a drive to get as many D&D pages to Good Article status as possible around that time, putting a lot of work into Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, and Forgotten Realms, and working with other editors to get about ten additional new GA's so far.

Earlier this year, I also branched out into comics articles with a GA-push, working with WikiProject Comics members to help get Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, and LGBT themes in comics promoted in February and March so far. I believe that collaboration and consensus are the keys to making Wikipedia work, and I think the entire Wikipedia project could go much further if more of us were to focus our efforts in this way.

Also, after having looked at the WP 0.7 selection bot results, I noticed that a lot of notable and important toys articles weren't anywhere on the list, so I created an assessment scheme for WikiProject Toys to make sure they can get recognized for WP 1.0.

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 think most of us get into our little scraps and arguments, and I certainly have, but I have only had one significant conflict which I brought to dispute resolution. Due to seemingly irreconcilable philosophical differences, it seems like this conflict between myself (and others) with this other editor is not likely to ever be truly resolved in an amicable manner. The best way to deal with this user, I have found, is to simply avoid editing where this person goes; there is no conflict when there is no contact. I can't say that this editor won't return to his prior activities in my usual area of concern, but I will do my best to keep a cool head if that is his choice of action.

On that, and other conflicts, I've found the best course of action (through trial and error, trust me!) is to take a step back and breathe, and come back to it later. If I can't resolve it by myself, I'll try to find someone more level headed than myself to help intervene before things get out of hand - or tone things back down if they are already out of hand. I use humor a lot, but I do try to remain

civil

and respectful of others' feelings.

Additional questions from

Neurolysis

4. It is essential for an administrator's past discussions to be easily accessible for quick retrieval in future. Why don't you have archiving set up on your talk page? (I can set up a bot to do it for you, if you like)

A: Nah, thanks, but no bots; I can do it manually myself later today if it might be an issue down the road - I've only got about five or ten requests from other people to get to it already, but I guess I've never thought much of it. :) BOZ (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. :) BOZ (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Black Kite

5. In your answer to Q1 above you said " I may get into working on closing AFDs (though I have a hard time imagining myself ever hitting the "delete" button)". Does that mean that you'd only close AfDs which were obvious Keeps or No Consensus?

A: Most likely, yes; if I even do get into AFD closes, then most likely I would defer any clear Deletes to someone more comfortable with the chopping block. I would say that I am more likely to get into CSD than AFD, particularly in cases such as copyvios, hopelessly unverifiable POV cases, and other things which are generally uncontroversial deletions. If one of those cases found its way to AFD rather than CSD, then I might just be the one to pull the trigger. Maybe seriously

WP:SNOW delete cases at AFD as well, but this is something I'd have to ponder. At this time, I think the deletion process is unlikely to be a major focus of my time and attention, but one never knows what the future may hold. BOZ (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Quadell

6. Under what circumstances would you block someone you've been in a disagreement with? And under what circumstances would you protect and article you've contributed significantly to?

A: In both cases I would seek a neutral party admin(s) to help me work out the issues. I don't believe it is wise for an involved admin to wield the tools in such cases. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from

Jennavecia

7a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: To be honest, I haven't really taken a stance on that situation yet (I know, cop out). Obviously, BLPs are a special concern, and they need special care, as they can actually be harmful if abused. For example, earlier today, someone posted that Dave Arneson wasn't expected to live much longer, using a message board as a source. I think having more eyes on BLPs is the best solution, though I don't know if that's particularly workable. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1.

Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Flagged revisions seems like it will require extra work and needlessly slow up the process of editing these articles, likely leading to a growing backlog. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions might have more merit, and I'd be curious to see how that worked under a limited test (not all BLPs, maybe 100 or so selected articles). I'm absolutely against applying indefinite semi-protection to an entire class of articles; it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember? BOZ (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7c. For BLP AFDs, closing as "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I don't personally see a difference between BLP AFDs and any others, or why there should be one. I would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis using the reasons given by the participants, but "no consensus" has always defaulted to "keep" in my experience, and I see no reason why BLPs should be treated differently in that regard. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with

adminship

, please answer the following questions:

• 8. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 8a. ...an editor to be
  blocked
  ?

• A: An editor can be blocked if they persist in activities such as breaking 3RR, posting copyvios, blatant incivility, spamming, and harassing other users. An editor should usually be warned first, preferably by more than one editor, unless the violations are extreme, and blocking should only be used when talking to the editor isn't working or likely to work. An admin involved in a situation with the editor should defer to a neutral admin to place the block. Editors who persist in this behavior should be blocked for longer periods each time, and the community may decide to make it indefinite; likewise, an admin may make the block indefinite if it is clear that the user is here to cause nothing but trouble. BOZ (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 8b. ...a page to be
  protected
  ?

• A: An article or page should be protected when it has fallen under one or more forms of abuse of Wikipedia policies. Vandalism is clearly at the top of the list, but edit warring over content and other situations will sometimes require a page to be protected.
  Gambit (comics) were all recently semi-protected, for example, because several editors (many of them IP anons, but not all) continued to insert text based on an illegal copy of the unreleased film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine; discussion brought forth a consensus that this is an unreliable source, and the editors continued to place this information despite warnings, thus these pages were semi-protected. Another example is the above mentioned Dave Arneson. A blogger had heard that Arneson has passed away, so a number of editors (again, many of them IP anons, but not all) were using an unreliable source to edit the article thusly, despite warnings to the contrary, and the page was semi-protected yesterday (the blogger later recanted his story, saying he found out that Arneson was in hospice care instead). In these examples I provide, I was in favor of temporary semi-protection. Generally, I feel the same cautions should be used with page protection as I feel with blocking. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 8c. ...a page to be
  speedily deleted
  ?

• A: A page should be speedily deleted, usually when newly created, if it is in clear violation of one or more policies and cannot easily be fixed. It was postulated below that I would not be willing to delete an attack page BLP; if the article contains primarily unsourced defamatory information and/or POV OR in its only existing versions, and it doesn't appear that the article can be rebuilt as at least a stub after removing the violations, then of course the page should be deleted. I would say the exact same thing for obvious cases of copyright violation, advertising spam, and patent nonsense for any article. I do not feel that an admin should speedily delete a page which was not identified as a speedy deletion case by another user, unless what I said above applies. Some articles are deleted for technical reasons, which I will admit I do not fully understand. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 8d. ...the policy to
  ignore all rules
  to be applied to a situation?

• A: Words to live by. :) I will admit that I use this one liberally (not to be confused with frequently), as it is one of the five pillars. What I think this means is, not that Wikipedia is an anarchy so that you can do what you want, but that the rules which are here are meant to be interpreted differently for different situations. The best rules are defined with common sense in mind. If you know that something is right, then you do it. If you think other people might object, then you discuss it with them. If consensus is clear that you should do or not do something, then you go with that. It's "ignore all rules", not "ignore consensus" or "ignore admins" – those you should never ignore, although those should be negotiable in some situations. Good enough?  :) BOZ (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 9. How does one determine
  DRV
  discussion.

• A: Consensus can be a bit of a nebulous concept at times, and not everyone can always agree when it has been achieved. Certainly, consensus on an article talk page or deletion discussion is much more local than the consensus which brings the community to arrive at policies and guidelines. I don't have a lot of experience with policy building and modifying (boring), so I can only speak to the smaller consensus discussions. Consensus is not determined solely by the numbers of people saying yes or no (especially in smaller discussions), but by the strength of an argument. Strength of an argument can be subjective though, which is why an objective observer is needed in some cases. I have been involved in a Request for Comment/User, and now a Request for Arbitration, both of which give me a deeper insight into how consensus is determined. An article talk page is a good place to determine what should be done with the article; it is a good place for merge discussions, to discuss whether certain additions would be/are helpful, and you can have an article RfC or 3O to help determine a broader consensus. XfD are consensus-building exercises by their very definition, which determine the fate of an article, category, or whatnot. Deletion review is similar, except used to determine whether the previous discussion reached the same consensus which was actually applied. I have no idea if this was a helpful answer or not, feel free to rephrase and ask again? :) BOZ (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 10. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Well, I've been involved in a few of these, and witnessed quite a few more between others; I have reported both involved and uninvolved cases to admins previously. First thing to do is not rush in to take action; you have to understand what you're dealing with. JohnQ might be a sockpuppet or some kind of other disruptive user (assuming I'm not already familiar with this person), and I'd need to make sure the complaint was legitimate and not some kind of shenanigans to make one or both of those users look bad. I'd have to make sure that one version wasn't vandalism, or that one of the users wasn't inserting (or re-inserting) obviously POV or OR text, or some other kind of policy-violating text. If that was case, I'd have to warn the user committing the offense that they need to stop; if they had previous warnings and they continued then things may have to be escalated as described in my above answers. If both users appear to be contributing in good faith, I'd have to check to make sure that one or both was not violating 3RR, and if necessary warn them about that. I would notify both that they need to discuss these changes on the article's talk page and work out a consensus there, with any other users that may be involved in editing the article. If the edit warring continues, I would have to recommend a 3O or RfC, or possibly even an RfM for dispute resolution. A lot of this depends entirely on the editors' demeanor, and how willing they appear to make attempts to resolve the dispute without administrator intervention. The page may need protection if the editors are unwilling to make attempts to work together, and if things get really bad a blocking may be involved; I would try to get another admin or two involved if things do get ugly, rather than just handling it myself. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 11. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Well, obviously, for the same reason anyone does: the money, fame, power, and women!

Simple enough question, but it gets a complicated answer. :) I'm sure you know already, as we've talked about it, but I guess this is my chance to elaborate for the spectators. ;)

I suppose that pretty much every user wants access to the tools – not necessarily as a greedy thing, but because of their utility and practicality. I know there have been plenty of times where I said "I wish I could do this, or that" and either been unable to do something or had to track down someone else who could help, and I'm sure every regular editor who's been around for any length of time has thought the same thing. But there's a reason these tools aren't available to just everyone, because they can be abused. I never sought the path of administrator, because I just didn't think I needed the tools that badly.

Almost a month ago, after I had asked for help from someone with "admin super powers", Hiding approached me and asked if I would like to have them for myself. I thought to myself, "Well, no, I'm not really cut out to be an administrator. It's a lot of responsibility, probably involves me doing things that are outside my normal interest, there are already enough admins already (yeah, I'm looking at you DougsTech!), and I don't think I'd do a particularly good enough job, or at least do enough admin work to make me worthy of the title." Of course, you never know if that's just me beating up on myself like usual, or if my self-assessment is actually right for a change. :) So, as I'd determined I'd do if anyone were to ever ask me to be an admin, I politely refused with a "No thanks."

But that answer just wasn't good enough for Hiding! Oh no, sir, no way.  ;) He told me I should give it some thought, and that it's important to have more admins who are active editors like me. Then as if that wasn't enough, Emperor and jc37 jumped in agreed with him. OK, three admins whom I've worked with are all now in agreement, so I can't just simply dismiss it. I told them I would need a couple of weeks to think about it, because I had something very time consuming going on in my personal life. So, I thought about it. I came back and asked Hiding why he felt that I specifically would be a good candidate to become All-Powerful. He said that he feels I'm a good editor that he could trust, and that should be enough, and that he trusts my judgment, and that I'd be able to achieve more editing ambitions with the tools than without. I figured, well nothing so special about me then, but maybe he's right, so I said that if he nominated me I'd accept.

So really, it wasn't based out of any want or need on my part to have this status, but accepting in good faith that these three guys who've already been there might actually know what they're talking about, and that I should give it a shot and see where that takes me. I decided that if the community said "nope, not ready" I could accept that, and just continue on my merry way as I always have. I decided that I would keep things honest about my attitude and intentions, rather than giving any political answers to try to make myself look better or cover up any embarrassing flaws, nor would I try to be someone that others expect me to be (thus I don't worry too much about the two legitimate Oppose votes I have so far), and let people who know me and people who don't know me be the judges of whether I should get the job or not. It certainly appears to me from the Support votes below that the community is supportive enough of the idea. So, hopefully you all have my back, right, and will help to make sure I don't screw up too badly?  :) BOZ (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from

^Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage in the main space is at 50% for major edits and 85% for minor edits, I find that to be an moderately acceptable number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary.

12. Why is an edit summary important when editing?

A. I didn't realize it was skewed in such a strange way. :) Edit summaries are important, obviously, as they often explain the rationale behind what an editor is doing (although, heh, if done poorly, an edit summary can actually make an editor's changes more confusing). The reason I haven't made more use of them is because I will often make a lot of changes fairly quickly, and perhaps I'm careless in taking the time to explain myself; this also explains the odd skew with the percentage on the minor edits, as I don't often tick the "minor" box when it actually is a minor edit, but when I do take the time to do that I usually also do take the time to add an edit summary. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?

A. Absolutely; I generally try a lot harder to remember in such cases because, as I say, explaining one's rationale is important. Certainly if I'm reverting someone's edit, I may simply put "rvt", but more often than not I'll explain it a bit better than that ("vandalism", "nonsense", "POV", etc). BOZ (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?

A. I might as well turn that option on, and I probably should have done this already. Promising to add an edit summary probably won't change my bad habits, but I will turn on that option immediately after answering this question to keep myself on the right track. :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

15. Here is a general question about

afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

A. Only one question? :) I'm not one likely to delete something merely for an apparent lack of notability. I would, however, feel that such a stub might need appropriate tags, such as {{

primarysources}} since the only link is to the home page. I'd say that A7 was clearly misapplied in this case (there are claims of some sort of notability there, right?), and if I were reviewing CSD nominations I'd say that PROD would be better in this case - that gives interested contributors the chance to fix up some concerns without the drama that often results from AFD. (BTW, weird how this article hasn't been edited since the day after it was created!) BOZ (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: It has now. :) –

T • C) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Links for BOZ: BOZ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BOZ can be found here.
• Promote BOZ

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BOZ before commenting.

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]