Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Boson

This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but might like to be one someday
From where does the objection to this user box emanate? I know at least one editor who has an advise essay warning editors not to have such user boxes; but why is there such angst against a user box? What's the legacy behind such an objection? Lourdes 14:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it makes some people think a user is too eager to be an admin and wants adminship as a hat. I'm not too familiar with Boson, but I'm assuming good faith and that they actually want to help out. Maybe others aren't doing the same. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  14:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Think of it like this: the aspiring admin userbox is like a bumper sticker. If a kid just out of high school puts a bumper sticker on his car saying "The driver of this car hopes to become a doctor someday", that doesn't disqualify them from becoming a doctor. I would certainly hope that our admins want to be admins. Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The userbox is a very poor basis for opposing and one that should not be taken seriously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  15:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of RfA !voters like humility. And/or see such userboxen as evidence of immaturity. Personally, I think it's a bit of flimsy speculation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And/or see such userboxen as evidence of immaturity. – Well, that's yet another reason I'll never be an admin. I've got tons of userboxes. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up, it makes me concerned too. In the essay where I've seen it flagged as a potential negative, the context is concern about admin candidates who've joined the site only for the sake of collecting authority, not building the encyclopedia. I totally get and agree with the view this is a temperament we'd like to avoid in admins; but if we really think it's bad for people to volunteer themselves for the role, then it seems like...we probably shouldn't offer a way for people to volunteer themselves for the role. Seems like there's a risk it functions as a bit of a trap/not very much in a spirit of good faith. Plus, it's not like RfA voters won't sniff out hat-collecting by other means. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the original objections to it came from editors who put that on their userpage from day 1. That tends to indicate a desire to collect hats. I have a feeling those objecting to it here just don't understand why certain editors have that criteria, and they're blindly applying it to every editor. In this case, Boson had been on the project a decade (seven years actively) before indicating his interest, so ... seriously? That's hat-collecting? ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

KGirlTrucker81's oppose

 * 1) Oppose: The lack of AIV reporting, RFP requests and the I wanna be an admin Ubox fails Kudpung's RFA criteria. Overall, he's an great editor. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The user box for "wanting to become an administrator actually shows that you are willing to do the job. I don't see anything wrong with it and I personally think its a good thing. Class455 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You says that he's a great editor overall. Does a lack of AIV reports or RFP requests really warrant refusing the tools to a great editor? And what on earth is the problem with that userbox anyway? Lepricavark (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the editor wants the tools specifically for AIV and RFPP, so in this case AIV and RFPP are of particular concern. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There's no denying it would be better if he'd had more experience, but I think he has been around long enough to know how to handle vandalism. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The I wanna be an admin Ubox could increase oppose votes. So, they need to focus more on editing and less on adminship. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 02:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that my focus is on editing rather than on adminship (though not at this precise moment, of course). It might help if I explained how the "I might like to become [an administrator] someday" userbox got added. Some time ago, there was a lot of hand-wringing over how to get more admins, and in one of the discussions someone said that they had written a script (or whatever) to create a list of people who might be approached. As I recall one of the criteria mentioned was a userbox indicating a willingness to become an admin, so I thought it would be helpful (to Wikipedia, not to me!). --Boson (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are citing the userbox as a reason to oppose because it might lead to opposes? With all due respect, that makes no sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We should be encouraging the use of that userbox! We do want more admins don't we? -- &oelig; &trade; 04:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, ? Look at Boson's history - it is almost entirely focused on editing and not on admin. In fact, "not enough admin" is one of the oppose reasons! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just yet another ridiculous oppose !vote from KGirlTrucker81. Quite frankly his votes at RFA (and his comments elsewhere) are illogical and make no sense. I know I was looked down upon for questioning his English skills previously, but I still stand by my statement I made in a previous RFA (Godsy or Samtar's? Can't remember). Finally, this user seems to have a bunch of user rights I don't think they need or are abusing (pending changes reviewer is the big one here), and when questioned about poor reviewing he will give a nonsensical/poorly structured response. Good grief. Patient Zerotalk 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this how it works? The only reason that, and I quote, exists is because of the idea that there's some sort of a 'vast conspiracy' going on where:
 * - The presence of the 'admin ubox' on one's page somehow directly correlates to the total oppose votes the candidate in question receives
 * - The absence of the 'admin ubox' on one's page somehow directly correlates to the total support votes the candidate in question receives
 * - The ratio of S:O votes is highly dependent on not just one's edits and experience, but also the display of their userpage
 * It's a classic example of pseudoscience. According to the page pseudoscience, it is defined as:
 * "Pseudoscience is a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[Note 1][3] A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[4]"
 * When in doubt, solve problems with science!
 * UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 21:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If I may address the lack of AIV reporting here, though it has also been raised by others: I have used that route a few times (if I recall correctly mainly for vandalism-only accounts where speed seemed important), but if you look at my non-article contributions, you should find quite a few vandalism warnings. By the time the warning levels reach a level where I would file an AIV report, I usually find the user has already been blocked on the basis of my previous warnings (possibly together with other warnings). The administrator perspective is different: I would see my job as an admin to monitor AIV, but my corresponding job as an editor is to revert the vandalism, check the vandal's other contributions, and issue a warning at the appropriate level. If you want to check my contributions with respect to vandalism, it  might be more helpful to look at my last 500 contributions to the user talk namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Boson&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1. If you search for "unconstructive" you can find 94 of the vandalism warnings I issued.  --Boson (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Godsy's I think. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 15:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this correctly, KGirlTrucker81 has opposed based on Kudpung's RfA criteria, yet Kudpung supports the nomination. That says a great deal right there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which I use the same criteria as well. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 17:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are using Kudpung's criteria, it only seems logical that you would reach the exact same conclusion as him? 🎅 Patient Crimbo 🎅 grotto presents 19:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudpung's criteria in tandem with the user box thing says that: "users who join Wikipedia with the sole intention of working their way towards adminship don't get my support." The spirit of that is clear and consequently, it's hard to see how a user who has been editing since 2006 and is only now running has only joined up to be an admin. That would make Boson one of the longest and most patient sleeper agents in Wikihistory! Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . I can see why many think this is a broken process... 🎅 Patient Crimbo 🎅 grotto presents 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 had some good advice for any new admin
, your advice here to take it slow. Ask questions. Work in uncontroversial areas to start. Don't jump into things without asking the administrators experienced in those areas for advice first. Admit to mistakes if you make them, and work to fix them is good advice for any new admin, not just. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, absolutely. I think it's particularly relevant here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)