Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ


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

BOZ
Final (64/4/3); Ended 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– Boz is an editor who has been here since early 2006, and in that time has shown a willingness to learn and communicate. He's been an excellent addition to the WikiProject Comics team, almost single-handedly inspiring our recent good article drive. Boz is a great article editor, willing to learn how to write better articles, and is a great believer in and respective of consensus. I think BOZ has the essential temperament an admin needs, that of being willing to listen and to think, and to act. I would trust BOZ implicitly with the tools, I think his block log speaks to his nature, as does his participation in mediations. BOZ is a great editor who would make good use of the tools to improve Wikipedia. Hiding T 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Drilnoth: I agree with most everything that Hiding said. I've probably had more interaction with BOZ than any other user... he was actually the first person to leave a non-template message for me. :) He seems to be very careful in his editing and understanding of Wikipedia policies and, as Hiding said, has really helped to guide articles up to GA status, for both the Comics and Dungeons & Dragons projects. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * Resolved. :) BOZ (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. Deadpool (comics), Emma Frost, and 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 9. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.
 * Optional questions from Foxy Loxy  Pounce!
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

'''Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:
 * 15. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight."'' Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started a short article on The Political Quarterly. It was promptly nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use prod or afd instead?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment: It has now. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for BOZ:
 * 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
 * ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you quite sure you don't want to answer the questions, BOZ? While they are optional, not answering them may have an adverse effect on your candidacy. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:BOZ - I think this was transcluded too early (before he had a chance to answer them). — neuro  (talk) (review) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was busy co-nomming my co-nommer (heh); I'm adding my responses now. :) BOZ (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the questions are supposed to be answered before we transclude, can we amend the instructions. I found them really unclear, to be honest, which is a worry.  The template I was advised to use to gain the edit stats didn't work, for one, and as shown, I couldn't make head nor tail of the timeline. Hiding T 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing stats posted on talk page by nom. iMatthew : Chat  12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the instructions said to do. Hiding T 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - BOZ is a dedicated contributor with good contributions and temperament. Pending any serious issues coming up, I see no reason not to support. :) — neuro  (talk) (review) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - as co-nom. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Has made good contributions and there is no reason to oppose. GT5162 (我的对话页) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I've worked with BOZ on a number of occasions, and I feel completely confident in supporting him. He handles stressful situations well, is a solid editor with plenty of experience, and I have no problems trusting him with the bit. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Not enough administrators currently.-- Patton t / c 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support Wizardman  13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support No qualms here.  hmwith  τ   14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I see no issue not too. And also per Patton:).America69 (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Clean block log, very longterm user, ample XPs, we need more admins and BOZ  looks ready for the bit.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support as candidate is a nice Wikipedian. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Good experiences with the user, seems to handle pressure well and do great work.  Flying Toaster  17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, after carefully studying Boz' contributions (especially at WP:AN/I), I believe this user will keep a cool head, defer to consensus, and use his tools appropriately. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support no problems whatsoever, would make a good solid admin. Ikip (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I've seen BOZ's work in the DnD project and at the Gavin Collin's RfC where he helped steer a potentially messy discussion into a slightly less messy outcome. Seems like faint praise, but it isn't.  that was hard work and doubly hard because most of the work he did was on behalf of Gavin.  He would have 'benefited' from letting gavin twist in the wind, but he and Drilnoth (who is running at the same time?) didn't want that to happen.  I'm also happy to say that I can support him despite my disputes on content issues with him. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support in agreement with User:Drilnoth. Seems willing to be a steady and stable influences for Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Well-qualified candidate.  -  down  load  |   sign!  18:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Capable, collegial and level-headed. Don't think there's a significant probability of BOZ going rouge on us. Having more trustworthy pro-fiction admins will hopefully help temper certain elements of that ideological bent too, which can only be a good thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. User with a long, positive edit history. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Cool-headed, definitely qualified. Will make a good admin. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support John Carter (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support good natured...can't use my 'level' up joke as already did so yesterday and it would look really naff - Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support-- Giants27 T/  C  21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Why Not? - Fastily (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. I have worked with BOZ on D&D related material and feel he would make a fantastic administrator. Organised, committed, intelligent and a great contributor to the encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support the clueful contributor.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Thankyou for a clueful answer to my queries, and good luck. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Has been around since Feb 2006 and has used rollback very well and has a excellent track and the project will only benefit with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 31)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support per all the above.  L ITTLE  M OUNTAIN  5  review! 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support one of the most level headed editors I've seen. Also does great work with article improvement and cleaning up borderline D&D articles by referencing and redirecting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong Support - BOZ is a fine example of the wikipedian and editor. He has worked tirelessly on a multitude of articles include many GA candidates.  He is fair and listens to others.  Web Warlock (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support enthusiastic and knowledgeable (in a number of areas). (Emperor (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
 * 36) Support outstanding editor in areas that could use more outstanding editors. Has managed to calm me down in the past.  Will do a great job. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per positive past interactions and collaborations. I don't see the BLP policy knowledge weakness as a big deal, given his past contribution areas--I trust him to find help to shore up his weak spots as a natural extension of his demonstrated track record at collaborating on articles. Jclemens (talk)
 * 38) Support - Absolutely. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - per above Power.corrupts (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support, solid answers to the questions, good editing history, thoughtful and cautious. Will make a fine admin.  Dreadstar  †  16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Weak Support Seems unlikely to break the wiki; while I note Jennavecia and DGG's comments, it seems that BLP/AFD work will not be the primary arena of this candidate, and he stated plainly that he will defer to other admins in areas not his forté. Glass  Cobra  16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Res2216firestar 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Can't see any problems. Editor seems to have a good grasp of what he knows and what he needs to learn. Can't ask for anything better. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Support No alarms here. Seems to have their head screwed on. -- Ged UK  08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Support iMatthew : Chat  11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Weak support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards; no good reason to oppose; but I share DGG's concerns that a broader background is better. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Support oh yes. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Support - While I supported BOZ running, I honestly wasn't sure about supporting (was somewhat neutral, with a few supportive leanings); as (most) of my interactions with him involved content, and not so much the "other" areas that admins typically end up getting involved in (whether they want to or not : ) - But I have to say, answers to my questions were well above average. And in my opinion, far better than the typical "summarise the policy". And your answer to 10 was one of the better ones I've seen. You seem to admit in 9 that while you seem to understand the fundamentals, you aren't "sure" about WP:CON in "practice". But I also know that you work closely with several people who I think do "get it". So you should pick up the practical aspects even if only by osmosis. And I like your strightforward sense to answering questions, and that you still have your sense of humour. The only reason this isn't a "strong support", is that they're currently complaining about adjectives at WT:RFA : ) - jc37 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) Support - BusterD (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) Support&mdash;unlikely to abuse the tools. &mdash; Deckiller 04:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. No problems at all. —  Σ  xplicit  05:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) Support - He has helped to resolve conflicts, and seems even-tempered. His experience in fiction issues will be an asset. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Lean Support - the DGG stuff would put me as a neutral, but I am leaning support because I liked your willingness to help those restore deleted pages as one part of building up the encyclopedia. Too many people are willing to remove and few are willing to help restore and fix problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) Support - Can't believe I just noticed this thread. Well, BOZ is a great user - he's smart, ambitious and very knowledgeable. -- A talk / contribs 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) Support The answers to my questions remove any concerns I had, also per my RfA criteria  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) Support Good luck with the bit. Dean B (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) Support: The answers to the questions are what I like to see. Boz (sorry, I can't bring myself to type that in caps!) is clearly a dedicated, intelligent, and thoughtful editor.  Certainly should do well.   Mae din \talk 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 60) Support - excellent, clued-in user. AdjustShift (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 61) Support - would seem to be a sensible addition to the ranks. -- Banj e  b oi   02:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 62) Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and great contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 63) Support -  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 02:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 64) Support - Answers show a careful, thoughtful approach that we need more of. Frank  |  talk  12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
Tentative oppose I do not think the answer to Q 5 was well considered.. The objectivity of keep closes can only be shown by the willingness to delete when necessary--and vice-versa. DGG (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) moved to neutral.
 * 1) Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Candidate doesn't grasp the problems we as a project face with BLPs. We need pro-active admins willing to work for change in this area, to protect the living subjects of biographies. Forums used as sources are the least of our worries when we're dealing with cases like John Seigenthaler, Fuzzy Zoeller, Taner Akçam, and all the similar cases that didn't make the papers. لenna  vecia  03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Switching to neutral because the other opposes are so inane, I'd rather not be associated.  لenna  vecia  12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do agree with you completely, but BLPs haven't been my main area of concern, and I haven't worked much with them and am probably not likely to. I do appreciate your input, though. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're clearly going to pass, and you'll probably be a fine admin. My main focus, however, is improving the BLP situation, so in that you are unlikely to help fix the issues, I cannot support. لenna  vecia  20:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose if this editor cannot forsee using the delete button, editor probably doesn't need it. It's OK to be an inclusionist, but not being willing to delete BLP violations or attack pages while gleefully undeleting PRODs upon request is not what I'd like to see in an admin. Gotta do both. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never said I wouldn't delete an attack page... in fact, I absolutely would. BOZ (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest oppose What's up with the edit summaries on articles? In general, your edits look fine, you seem to interact okay with other editors, and I would like to support an RfA for an editor who edits heavily in pop culture articles to spite others who denigrate editors who edit heavily in pop culture articles (an important area on wikipedia which needs more responsible admins).  Imagine my disappointment to click through 500 or your recent article edits and see so incredibly many empty edit summaries.  What's the deal?  --KP Botany (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see your answer above to Foxy Loxy, but, to me, this is the sort of detail you should have addressed before accepting an RfA. It shows community responsibility and that you acknowledge a shared editing space with others creating the encyclopedia, and not using edit summaries shows you haven't gotten there yet, imo.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Strongest oppose"? Come on man, I'm tryin' to change. :) BOZ (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to thing a 'crat would laugh at the idea of giving "strongest" weight to an oppose for something that can be forced to change through preferences, not to mention it's assuming bad faith to think you wouldn't improve upon this considering your comments about it above. لenna  vecia  12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral pending answer to my Q.5 above. Also slightly concerned by lack of relevant activity in projectspace. Black Kite 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Switched to support. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I admire Boz's (or is it Boz'?) honesty in answering Q3. I'm currently neutral pending an answer to my Q6 above, and until I finish poring over his talkpage contribs. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to support, above. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) After some discussion on my talk page, I see no reason to oppose, but I do not support because I think it is good for a candidate to be at least a little comfortable with all major areas. DGG (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Not quite as much edit summary usage as I would like, but otherwise, a good editor. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - It's disappointing to see that the candidate shows no interest in helping improve the BLP situation, which really needs everyone's help, but I believe he'll be a good admin, thus there was no good reason for me to hang out in the smelly oppose section. لenna  vecia  12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.