Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BozMo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] BozMo

Final (50/14/9); Ended Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:40:44 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.

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 blahedits 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 blahedits 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)
    Comment on "commitment" -- Give some respondents' concerns about BozMo's commitment to Wikipedia, in addition to the 4500+ edits shown by Interiot's edit tool, Bozmo has probably spent hundreds of additional hours on the non-profit 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. It's not a Foundation-sponsored project but I think it is within the spirit of the project. This person is a confirmed Wikipediholic possibly beyond all hope of redemption short of a massive intervention by friends and loved ones. --A. B. (talk) 16:14, 16 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)
  12. Support, my own edits/day do not reach, on average, much higher than 12/day some months, and people voted me on as a sysop unanimously. I see no reason not to trust that this user will make good use of the tools when they have time to do so. -- nae'blis 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Proto::► 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Inactivity is no reason to deny an otherwise acceptable admin candidate. When he's here, he can use the tools, when he's not, what difference will it make if he has them or not? I fail to see the reasoning.--Scimitar 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Has been around a while; answered questions well, mature attitude, straightforward about admitting when he has messed up. Per WP:RFA I regard such qualities as more important than meeting arbitrary numerical cutoffs. Raymond Arritt 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support.Old wikipedian, with experience.--MariusM 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. We needs admins, not edits-per-month-count-itis. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. BozMo would make a fine and trusted Admin. --Hu12 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support. As an admin who doesn't make that many edits per month, I have to say I'm a bit disturbed by the oposing sentiment. RfA is about whether we can trust this user with the mop. Based on everything I have seen, I would say absolutely. Indeed, I am more comfortable with an editor who makes slow, cautious, and deliberate edits than someone who becomes over-invested in the project to the point of losing it. Adminship is no big deal, when it starts to become a big deal, that's when we get the admins who snap and start wheel-warring or become obsessively entrenched in a particular wiki-philosophy. Irongargoyle 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    I would also like to commend BozMo on the CD work. Irongargoyle 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I see no problems, slow activity is not a concern of mine. James086Talk 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. No concerns, satisfied he has the necessary grasp on policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Weak Support (switched from oppose) - I have concerns, as listed below, about the level of involvement in various administrative tasks and processes. However, an expressed (and demonstrated) willingness to improve in the areas of concern, combined with strong anti-spam work, has convinced me that this user would make a good admin. --BigDT 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support It's not always about how many edits a user has, its what the person does with it. BozMo in my believe will be a quality sysop and should be entrusted with the tools. Somitho 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Let me put this quite bluntly - those who say that edit count or edit distribution show that he isn't committed to the project haven't been in WP:1.0. He has been simply invaluable there. Titoxd(?!?) 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. based on response to Wizardman's !vote below. I think he'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Friendly, level headed, good answers, makes strong contributions. It's clear to me this user's not going to abuse the tools. Many opposes seem based on editcountitis. It's easy to jack up your edit count without helping the project any. For example, the candidate could stop working so hard investigating spam and start voting in every AfD without looking at the articles first. So maybe the lower count shows a greater amount of integrity! delldot | talk 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support A very friendly and good user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support because this is a good editor. The mop should be the natrual progression for every good editor. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support should be just fine as an admin. NoSeptember 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per comments made by: User:A. B., & User:J.smith. --Parker007 05:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong support. For all the good reasons listed above (and because I was unimpressed with most of the reasons listed in the oppose votes). BlankVerse 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Jaranda wat's sup 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Previously was opposed...but I don't know why. I don't thin k it was actually me voting the first time. I don't agree with the opposition about a low edit count at all. Best of luck, Ganfon 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per his work in the anti-spam effort and what appears to be a good ability to think through complex issues (although I do disagree with him over nofollow). ScottW 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per Scimitar and delldot. Joe 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong and Moral Support. Good candidate. It's a shame that people think you shouldn't be an admin since you haven't met some arbitrary number of Mainspace edits. I love the CD, by the way. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, you may or may not make much use of the tools, but in my opinion you're not too likely to abuse them, which is pretty much my only criterion. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Cabal support, I find the oppose votes less than convincing. Administrators are not essentially article contributors. This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Keep up the good work! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - Looks good to me. The guy can and will put the admin tools to good use. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Weakish Support, I cannot see how you would cause any harm to Wikipedia by gaining +sysop. You've shown me enough to put my trust in you, although the opposers do raise a couple of valid points. Daniel.Bryant 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Contributions look good; answers convincing. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Terence Ong 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Just returning from my wikibreak and see no problems here. :)  Glen  12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. (edit conflict) Support - per above, a fine contributor all round :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. --Aktron 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support: this user's anti-spam activities make them a "good guy" in my book, and frankly the "Oppose" rationales seem thin. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support per Phil Boswell. If we had half the number of admins dealing with spam that do vandal fighting, our work on the Spam projects would be a hell of a lot easier. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. I am satisfied this user is trustworthy and understands policy. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 13:28, 22 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)
    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)
    I don't remember posting this vote, to be honest. nad I don't know what i was thinking. Perhaps that auto-login needs to come off. Changed to support.
    Oppose due to low wikispace edits and what looks to be a lack of commitment.--Wizardman 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Points convinced me to take out opose stance. I'll withdraw from voting on this one.--Wizardman 03:15, 18 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)
  3. Oppose for Now per Ganfon. --tennisman sign here! 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per low edit count. Yuser31415 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please find a more useful criterion to start applying at RFA. Edit count is not an issue in this, or most, nominations. Becoming an admin is not about meeting an arbitrarily chosen number. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well, edit count makes sense when you have people who just barely manage 1000 edits. Not so much in cases like this with over 2000. -Amarkov blahedits 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 897 main namespace edits over a period of nearly three years is ludicrously small for an aspiring admin. With most of the user's edits being to talk pages, one can reasonably question their commitment to building an encyclopedia and their command of content policies. Beit Or 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    Reluctant oppose for several reasons, none of which would be enough individually, but collectively, with regret, I must oppose. (1)Very low edit summary use - 87% for major edits and 28% for minor edits per Interiot's counter. (2) I have some concern about your familiarity with policies and procedures. A couple of times in the last month, you nominated at AFD articles that fit the criteria for speedy deletion. If you are potentially going to be closing deletion discussions, some substantial evidence of familiarity with the process is a good thing. (3) You have no edits to WP:AIV (or at least nothing since May) ... again, this doesn't matter too much in and of itself, but if you are going to be blocking vandals at AIV, it would be helpful to see some evidence of familiarity with it. (4) In your recent vandalism reverts that I looked at, there was no evidence that you applied an appropriate {{test}} template to the user's talk page. In general, vandals aren't going to be blocked until an attempt is made to engage them through the templates and just reverting them without applying the template delays that process. --BigDT 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Switched to weak support --BigDT 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    It is no doubt bad form to reply (I first put this on the user page) but I don't mind and agree with these comments so much I wonder about withdrawing. The only consolation I can offer myself or others is (1) someone very recently pointed out to me about edit summaries, in particular that I could set preferences to self remind about this bad habit which I do now (2) until a few days ago I haven't really hung around recent changes (I guess I am unusual like that), so the vandalism I have generally picked up through "watch" is mainly subtle enough to have got through the RCP and many of the cases were repeated vandalism from roving IPs or school IPS so there didn't seem much point apart from occasional ones (e.g. [9]. Anyway I don't always put remarks on new vandals pages which I agree I should and I have gone back over the recent ones... (3) speedy delete versus AfD I have mixed feelings about. I got a little irritated when the servers had a very slow day and whenever they started working again someone had speedy deleted an article or reflagged for db an article I was starting here: [10]. I am inclined to the view that new articles are so invisible anyway we should give them more of a chance; particularly if they are started by a serious editor. Perhaps if I hung around Recent Changes more I would have a better idea of the scale of the real problem: but I generally move slower. Anyway, the thoughtfulness of this oppose vote is appreciated and as I said it ain't going to change anyone's world if I am not elected.--BozMo talk 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comments: First, BigDT, you have made a number of thoughtful comments -- perhaps the best of RfA. I continue to strongly support BozMo, but you make good points (I just weight them differently). Second, BozMo, I disagree with you about RC patrol. Yes, you're not stopping all the schoolkids, but you are one of the two or three most active spam-fighters on all of Wikipedia. And that's definitely vandalism. I don't think admins have an RC pages patrol quota. --A. B. (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Mainspace editing is not healthy enough - only 800 mainspace edits the bulk of which are reverts and small tweaks. The other thing is that in the last 6 months there were only a bit over 300. I feel that everybody should have a good and healthy level of work in the day to day encyclopedia before becoming an admin, as administration should revolve around improving article productivity, so having a solid experience is necessary here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Low number of project-space edits suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose for now but will be willing to support in a couple of months. Good luck. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Note for closing bureaucrat: at time of voting, user had an account for about 6 days, but approximately 240 edits
    I'm legit - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - way too few edits, and it's simply asking for too much at this point. Applaud his efforts to date, have no reason to doubt the kudos among the supporters, but propose that he have about 2-3 times as many edits before he try again. --Leifern 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Let me get this straight -- BozMo as of this minute has made 4,812 edits. You want him to have 9,624 to 14,436 edits before he tries again? --A. B. (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose too few edits right now. Elizmr 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I can't see how someone with only 900 mainspace edits could have the experience for adminship.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    And I can't see how mainspace edits are at all relevant to adminship. -Amark moo! 00:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. There are 900 edits to articles since April 2004. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Reluctant oppose. not enough edits on article pages. --GHcool 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Far too few mainspace edits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:11, 22 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)
  5. Neutral per (aeropagitica). S.D. ¿п? § 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral A great user, but the low number of mainspace edits leaves me a bit unsure about how you will handle yourself with dispute resolution and other frequent admin tasks. Nishkid64 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per Nishkid64. You're just not ready yet. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Please do reapply when you have a few more edits... IronDuke 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral The editors commitment to the WPCD is admirable. However, the contribution of content to the main space is disappointing. It's not so much the edit count, but the general lack of content contribution. No matter how level headed and committed the editor, if they do not have the experience of main space contribution it is unlikely they could truly understand the issues challenging the purpose of this project. As for the spelling issues, the new Firefox includes a spell check feature. Alan.ca 06:55, 21 January 2007 (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.